NQ, Griefers are a problem

[joaocordeiro]

14 minutes ago, Mordgier said:

You BUILD the civilization. You are in frontier space. It is uncivilized by nature. Just like the wild west. It is your job to create and spread this civilization - how you do that is up to you - but I expect it to be spread with an iron fist.

So when you are allowed to "BUILD" a house in RL, does that remove any state or city rule you need to follow?

How does "player built" or "player driven" becomes "unregulated player built" or "unregulated player driven" ?

[joaocordeiro]

48 minutes ago, ElGesem said:

Yes they should. If anyone wants to be a dick in the game it's their choice, there is no rule not to be a dick in terms and agreements to DU. 

The terms and agreements on DU say that they can carry out administrative punishment for not obeying game rules defined by NQ.
A game rule about "not being a dick" was just issued.

[Mordgier]

1 minute ago, joaocordeiro said:

So when you are allowed to "BUILD" a house in RL, does that remove any state or city rule you need to follow?

How does "player built" or "player driven" becomes "unregulated player built" or "unregulated player driven" ?

What state? What city? Whose rules?

 

I'm confused here, you seem to be under the misguided notion that you and I are subordinate to someone else who makes the rules.

 

DU has the same laws as international waters.

 

Also known as pretty much complete lack of them.

[Mordgier]

1 minute ago, joaocordeiro said:

The terms and agreements on DU say that they can carry out administrative punishment for not obeying game rules defined by NQ.
A game rule about "not being a dick" was just issued.

No.

 

The rule was about not building dicks.

 

Very different.

[joaocordeiro]

1 minute ago, Mordgier said:

What state? What city? Whose rules?

I will rephrase so you can't get away.....
 

On what ever state/country you live in.

You are allowed to BUILD a house in your property, right?
But can build a death trap with flesh piercing spike under a false floor?

Does the word "BUILD" mean "Unrestricted BUILD"?

[Mordgier]

Just now, joaocordeiro said:

I will rephrase so you can't get away.....
 

On what ever state/country you live in.

You are allowed to BUILD a house in your property, right?
But can build a death trap with flesh piercing spike under a false floor?

Does the word "BUILD" mean "Unrestricted BUILD"?

Yeah so like - you don't get it.

 

In RL I live in a country. The land is claimed and owned and under the jurisdiction of a government.

 

That is not the same as DU where the land is UNCLAIMED and UNOWNED.

 

If I were to build on 'uncliamed' land in the real word - you'd get the Republic of Minerva

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Minerva

 

So I'd get to make my own laws and rules.

[joaocordeiro]

6 minutes ago, Mordgier said:

So I'd get to make my own laws and rules.

Im talking about how that video title means what you say it means.

 

NQ can allow you to Build the civilization but within basic rules and still be a "player built civilization"

[Mordgier]

1 minute ago, joaocordeiro said:

Im talking about how that video title means what you say it means.

 

NQ can allow you to Build the civilization but within basic rules and still be a "player built civilization"

Game mechanics and 'rules' are different things and should be handled differently.

 

I have yet to see any 'rules' about how MY civilization should be built.

[joaocordeiro]

2 minutes ago, Mordgier said:

Game mechanics and 'rules' are different things and should be handled differently.

 

I have yet to see any 'rules' about how MY civilization should be built.

I can agree or disagree with your opinion. But its just "your" opinion.
It's not a promise made by NQ some time in the past.

[Zamiel7]

48 minutes ago, joaocordeiro said:

Computer game are somewhat more easy to regularize. Because game mechanics have a limited number of outcomes in each action. So players assume that it is possible to create rules that cover the entire gameplay. It is not possible.
 

So again, all the real world comparisons you bring up are totally invalid and don't contribute to this discussion on how NQ delivers rulings in their game: it is apples to oranges, my dude.

 

But speaking to this specific point you are making about in-game rules, you undermine your own point: it is totally, 100% possible to create rules to govern the vast majority (if not the entirety) of gameplay. As you say, mechanics in a game have a limited number of outcomes, and those outcomes can be clearly defined and understood by both developer and player. If one mechanic and its respective outcome(s) is deemed exploitive by NQ, they have two clear steps they can can, and should, take:

1. Declare the behavior against the rules in clear, specific terms, and punish those that do it.
2. If possible, render that behavior/mechanic/exploit impossible to do in the game through subsequent patches.

It's just that simple. Moreover, it is NQ's responsibility to address new concerns as they appear and continue to balance their game. You can certainly suggest they are unable to accomplish that task, but I think it's reasonable in a videogame to be able to address at least a majority of major and minor issues. At no point in the conversation do we need to discuss what it means to "be a dick" or "live in a society;" these are tangents that have vanishingly little to do with legitimate conversation about the impact of gameplay mechanics and whether or not they should be allowed.

55 minutes ago, joaocordeiro said:

The extreme is not subjective. When you dig a wall, without any construct or any other reason, in front of a landing strip. You are objectively being a dick.
The border between being a dick and not being a dick can be subjective. That's why NQ is doing the ruling case by case.

That's not how subjectivity or opinions work; the degree or extremity of a thing does not render it more or less subjective. Perhaps more or less consequential, but not subjective. It is also not an issue of concurrence;  even if everyone on the planet agreed that an action was "dickish" it doesn't suddenly become objective as a result because it is still possible for people to change their minds. This is literally the difference between facts and opinions. Rules can certainly be influenced by player and developer opinions, and that's a good thing, but those subsequent rules should never make use of subjective language. Less room for interpretation = better rule.

[BaconofWar]

Not if they are already there - duh.

[joaocordeiro]

2 hours ago, Zamiel7 said:

So again, all the real world comparisons you bring up are totally invalid and don't contribute to this discussion on how NQ delivers rulings in their game: it is apples to oranges, my dude.

My 2 examples explain how damage to others is subjective of the value others give to stuff. You don't have to comment them. But calling them "totally invalid" is just your opinion. Nothing more than that.

Responding to the rest of your topic:

 

NQ is a company that owns DU. At the end, NQ wants to make money to pay its employees.
To make money NQ has to keep up a good inflow of new players, to compensate the ones leaving and to evolve as a company.

Any in game action that deeply contradicts this can and should get NQ's attention and action.

Most actions we make in the game have some kind of unpleasant outcome to someone else (like PVP or undercutting a sell order). But also attract a lot of new players.
The main problem with griefing. One single player will end up trowing out a lot of players from the game.

For NQ is not about (generally perceived) fairness. It's about the success of the game if it's totally unfair.

Expressions like "player driven" and "freedom" are not excuses to be a dick.
And being subjective is not an excuse to not take action. We know that the OP example was 100% griefing. NQ should take action.<

Should there be written rules? Yes, if possible to write good ones. If it's not possible because it's too subjective, a judge will rule. (probably with several warnings before a permanent ban)

But we can't expect NQ to write the entire US Penal code just for us to play the game.

[Zamiel7]

1 hour ago, joaocordeiro said:

My 2 examples explain how damage to others is subjective of the value others give to stuff. You don't have to comment them. But calling them "totally invalid" is just your opinion. Nothing more than that.

Challenging the validity of someone's claims is foundational to rhetoric; that necessarily involves calling out examples as valid or invalid through reasoning and discussion. And, yes, while the product of that is technically my opinion, it's based on logic and reasoning that I've laid out. It's no different from what you've done, and if you want your opinion to be take seriously, you have to be willing to defend it.

2 hours ago, joaocordeiro said:

NQ is a company that owns DU. At the end, NQ wants to make money to pay its employees.
To make money NQ has to keep up a good inflow of new players, to compensate the ones leaving and to evolve as a company.

Any in game action that deeply contradicts this can and should get NQ's attention and action.

Most actions we make in the game have some kind of unpleasant outcome to someone else (like PVP or undercutting a sell order). But also attract a lot of new players.
The main problem with griefing. One single player will end up trowing out a lot of players from the game.

I agree with this, up to a point. Gaining new players and keeping them is incredibly important, obviously, and griefing should be addressed quickly and efficiently. But determining what is and is not griefing has to be more deliberate and specific than merely saying "don't be a dick." Establishing this concept has been the entire point of my posts. Game balance is an important discussion. Player interactions and behavior guidelines is an important discussion. Broadly labeling certain players or actions as "being a dick" does very little to forward either of these discussions.