Forced emotes - worse than ever

[SabrielofLorien]

From that article:



By the classical definition, the FE user would also be forced to suffer the effects of the FE and no more. The whole "turn them into a gankable level 5 and let everybody kill them" idea is well beyond justice and into the realm of vengeance.

The second definition, advocated by Mr. Davis, would likely result in no penalty for the FE user, unless the FE user managed to gain a resource node by his actions, in which case the FE user would be forced to relinquish the gains from that node. There may be other examples in which an FE user gains an unfair advantage, but I can't think what they might be - especially with open tapping soon to be worldwide.

So yes, I agree with you. Let the punishment fit the crime! (And let's not forget that crimes also tend to have an element of intent. Should the curious person who's never seen what the FEs do and is merely trying them out for the first time be punished to the same degree as the person who knows exactly what they do and is using them to disrupt a large event?)

But but that's the whole point of making the PVP part! It's so fun to ghank noobs. Someone put an avanc in bree - aint it fun? And just think of all the fun you would deny those throwers of /FE rotten tomatoes (which they would have to purchase form the store). You'd also deny WB/T of a needed source of revenue too. And we could add a part where the /FE rotten tomatoes deed requires 10x as many tosses as any other /FE but can only be triggered by the (now ghankable) L5. We could even make it a fellowship or raid level group item where everyone got COMMs for it (it is a PVP thing after all).

Of course... the original tosser of the /FE could just refrain....

[aside: from time to time I take an alt out and stand them out in the open for /FE needs. Recently I had my alt in front of the MD stable. Quite a lot of players came by to work on their deeds and I got some nice TYs from them. I was out there for 1+ hours and some players came by stable every time their CD was up. One player was cooking on a campfire so he built it right near my alt so he could keep working on his cooking levels. There are people who can and will do this for others (I got benefit too). It's just not necessary to do it at a concert.]

[Kalderic]

I am all for an opt-out as well.
But I don't think this will make everyone happy. Soon enough people who like the forced emotes will have a very hard time finding anyone to use them on.
Every sane person with a bit of dignity will opt out after getting hit by one of the emotes and will have no reason to enable this again in the future. Hell, even those who like forced emotes will probably make sure no one can use them on themselves.
So my prediction would be that forced emotes die out slowly with an opt-out option. having pretty much the same effect as just removing them from the game. Be it a bit more subtle .

[The-Walrus]

Add the opt-out option to the game, but leave it off by default. 90% of players won't even know it's there since they either don't understand english at all or read neither patch notes nor the forums. We the minority who despise it will have a solution, and everyone will be happy.
...time to wake up, eh?

[Neumi]

I am all for an opt-out as well.
But I don't think this will make everyone happy. Soon enough people who like the forced emotes will have a very hard time finding anyone to use them on. .

On opted out people they could be activable, but without affecting them in movement, only showing the graphical effects for the caster.

[Dworin]

But I don't think this will make everyone happy. Soon enough people who like the forced emotes will have a very hard time finding anyone to use them on.

If this is true, (and I suspect it is), then it will finally put to rest the argument put forth by some in the past that the people who are complaining about the forced emotes are in the minority.

[Rampagingdeath]

There's nothing to agree on. No one loses anything with an opt-out toggle which still allows the user to advance the deed. The only thing stopping it is Turbine's unwillingness or inability to implement it.

I'm starting to think that it's down now to an inability to admit that introducing the FE's in the first place might have been a mistake, people who don't like them want an opt-out, the majority of people who use them are happy with this - the one's who aren't happy? tough they're in a minority and still haven't (despite having been asked over and over) given a valid reason why they don't want it - maybe Turbine are too busy fixing lag issues

[Kalderic]

I don't think that people who dislike their character being forced into certain behaviour by someone else are a minority.
An important rule in any roleplaying game is that you can do pretty much everything you want except force a player into certain behavior. A character is the only thing the player has full control of.

This will annoy some people more then others, but if you would ask around I think no one will say they enjoy seeing their character waving a white flag surrendering to another player (unless the action was initiated by the player himself). At the best they just don't care.

[Ferthcott]

I'm starting to think that it's down now to an inability to admit that introducing the FE's in the first place might have been a mistake, people who don't like them want an opt-out, the majority of people who use them are happy with this - the one's who aren't happy? tough they're in a minority and still haven't (despite having been asked over and over) given a valid reason why they don't want it - maybe Turbine are too busy fixing lag issues

Dream on :P

Not sure if FE should be considered a mistake, with opt-out or without. More like a shallow addition that creates only a single event - the rest has to be filled by the player affected, whether it is screaming to GM, emoting back, sending angry tell, spending more time in forums disputing than actually playing etc.

That's why suggested "lolPvP debuff" - or any other, similar debuff/state change - seems so attractive to me: it gives affected player more ways to interact with a perpetrator, all of them still game - related. Opt-out brings much less, it simply silences a group no one but Turbine is able to describe with... numbers. Either it is - despite being vocal and self - important - very, very small so Turbine feels OK with putting opt - out at the very end of development queue, or difficulty involved is another case of unfixable Draigoch. Or it is like with lag: hard to fix, not everyone affected/complaining = Turbine focusing on something else, preferably affecting everyone.

If any of the above is true, I'd rather have something else - "lolPvP" or whatever, just... have devs develop something new instead of a way to inhibit already developed content.

[Dworin]

That's why suggested "lolPvP debuff" - or any other, similar debuff/state change - seems so attractive to me: it gives affected player more ways to interact with a perpetrator,

I don't *want* to interact with those who use the forced emotes. Forced emotes are a form of PvP thrust into the PvE game upon unwilling participants, and imo, there should be less PvP in the PvE game, not more.

[Ferthcott]

I don't *want* to interact with those who use the forced emotes. Forced emotes are a form of PvP thrust into the PvE game upon unwilling participants, and imo, there should be less PvP in the PvE game, not more.

Or someone could say there should be more of PvP in PvE game, effectively pushing it slightly towards "PvP" end of the spectrum. Binary thinking is not exactly appropriate in a game with a lot of people and non-binary tastes involved and where neither "1" nor "0" are fully embraced by the game in the first place.

Also: then don't. Same solution as with chicken session play as a part of er... session play system - it would be definitely poorer without such component, so I consider the fact it was developed something nice. Definitely better than providing "session play disabler/opt-out" for those who hate being "forced to abandon their characters only to advance epic storyline". The beauty of such solution is, many would interact - and with "lolPvP" (not just "PvP", read actual posts from people who proposed it earlier - I did...) debuff, each notorious spammer faces certain death & circle of shame every time in crowded areas, event grounds, so: in places that kind of spam can feel disruptive. In the very worst case: it reduces emote spam to emote - trip from rez circle - emote - trip from rez circle... with game offering one more *optional* level of interaction. Good enough if you ask me - especially if problems/lack of actual need I mentioned earlier are preventing Turbine from developing "boring" version instead.

[Dworin]

Or someone could say there should be more of PvP in PvE game, effectively pushing it slightly towards "PvP" end of the spectrum.

Someone could say that, yes. And the further toward the PvP end of the spectrum the game gets pushed, the more PvE'rs will be leaving the game.

[maxjenius]

I am all for an opt-out as well.
But I don't think this will make everyone happy. Soon enough people who like the forced emotes will have a very hard time finding anyone to use them on.

Your fail to understand the opt out as proposed (and as I mentioned a few posts before yours): using a prank on an opted out character would still advance the prank user's deed. Everyone gets what they want.

[Kalderic]

Your fail to understand the opt out as proposed (and as I mentioned a few posts before yours): using a prank on an opted out character would still advance the prank user's deed. Everyone gets what they want.

Maybe I was not interested in your proposal. there are more people having different opinions about the problem here except you.
Making forced emotes only visible to the ones casting them sounds ridiculous to me. So someone sees me lying on the ground while I have left that spot already?
Might as well make them useable on npc's only when only the caster can see it. Then it really bothers no one.

[manstan]

Your fail to understand the opt out as proposed (and as I mentioned a few posts before yours): using a prank on an opted out character would still advance the prank user's deed. Everyone gets what they want.

Oh Max, you know as well as I do most people that cast FE's aren't doing it to advance any deed.

Regardless of anything else, it is quite apparent turbine is never going to do anything about this, so your options are to suck up being greifed or quite playing. There is no third option. I haven't played in a couple of months, if I'm not playing I'm not spending.

Now FEs haven't changed since I've been here, and I have been through this argument a few times before. No reason to get in to it yet again. Doesn't mater who or how many want what, this isn't going to change. You don't like it? Your only option is to quit.

[UrsaMinor]

Or someone could say there should be more of PvP in PvE game, effectively pushing it slightly towards "PvP" end of the spectrum. Binary thinking is not exactly appropriate in a game with a lot of people and non-binary tastes involved and where neither "1" nor "0" are fully embraced by the game in the first place.

Also: then don't. Same solution as with chicken session play as a part of er... session play system - it would be definitely poorer without such component, so I consider the fact it was developed something nice. Definitely better than providing "session play disabler/opt-out" for those who hate being "forced to abandon their characters only to advance epic storyline". The beauty of such solution is, many would interact - and with "lolPvP" (not just "PvP", read actual posts from people who proposed it earlier - I did...) debuff, each notorious spammer faces certain death & circle of shame every time in crowded areas, event grounds, so: in places that kind of spam can feel disruptive. In the very worst case: it reduces emote spam to emote - trip from rez circle - emote - trip from rez circle... with game offering one more *optional* level of interaction. Good enough if you ask me - especially if problems/lack of actual need I mentioned earlier are preventing Turbine from developing "boring" version instead.

Prevention is always better than cure.

The retribution paradigm suffers from flaws, chief among them being that an unwanted act (from the target's point of view) must occur before vigilante justice can be administered. It depends on the hope that the instigator of the un-appreciated activity will modify their behavior after repeated doses of retribution. It's effectiveness depends on many variables, such as the population of the area (less people equals less chance of retribution) and whether or not those in the area have earned/purchased the retributive capability. The coding required to make this approach work is much more involved than that creating an opt-out, and as such would take longer (be more expensive) to develop and be more prone to unintended side consequences.

The retribution method may provide some short term euphoria for the vigilante, but it is not the solution. Retribution, as I said about another proposed solution, is the equivalent of a new legal statute, or law, which is ignorable or breakable at will. While it may dissuade some players from engaging in the specified activity, it can only mitigate, not solve, the problem. However, since this world is virtual, Turbine/WB has the ability to instead create a natural law, preventing the unwanted activity before it happens, and changing "this shouldn't be done" to the selected target into "this can't be done".

[Mirarian]

Doesn't mater who or how many want what, this isn't going to change. You don't like it? Your only option is to quit.

Actually no I do have another option.

If they hit me with a FE once I ask them to stop politely.
If the same person hits me again I ask them to stop a bit less politely.
If the same person hits me again I report for harassment.

Eventually the person will have enough harassment reports on them that some action will be taken. I won't know what or when but I have the satisfaction of knowing there is a punishment volcano and every report against them for anything will eventually add up to something.

[manstan]

Actually no I do have another option.

If they hit me with a FE once I ask them to stop politely.
If the same person hits me again I ask them to stop a bit less politely.
If the same person hits me again I report for harassment.

Eventually the person will have enough harassment reports on them that some action will be taken. I won't know what or when but I have the satisfaction of knowing there is a punishment volcano and every report against them for anything will eventually add up to something.

No, as has been shown repeatedly, no action will be taken, you are wasting your time filing the report. Turbine not only made the greifing tools, they encourage players to use them on other players, there for; by turbines terms, it isn't greifing. So no action will be taken.

Edit to add: You stand a better chance of actions being taken against you for harassing a mod with the reports.

[Dotlbeme]

Actually no I do have another option.

If they hit me with a FE once I ask them to stop politely.
If the same person hits me again I ask them to stop a bit less politely.
If the same person hits me again I report for harassment.

Eventually the person will have enough harassment reports on them that some action will be taken. I won't know what or when but I have the satisfaction of knowing there is a punishment volcano and every report against them for anything will eventually add up to something.

This. This is how mature people deal with what they consider a problem. They do not go off on long rants about how the whole [game] world needs to be changed to accomodate THEIR needs. They do not make outrageous demands because one person in one festival hit them with a 'non-damaging to anything but their ego' forced emote. They do not exaggerate the problem saying they cannot log in and stroll down the street without being bombarded by gangs of griefers, hell bent on making their virtual lives a living hell.

Judging from the non response to this 'issue' from anyone even remotely associated with game management, this is likely how they [Turbine] expect you to deal with your problems. And no, you will never know if they take action against the complainee. Mature people move on, trusting the powers who OWN THE GAME. If this is not satisfactory, vote with pocketbook, and your feet....

[manstan]

This. This is how mature people deal with what they consider a problem. They do not go off on long rants about how the whole [game] world needs to be changed to accomodate THEIR needs. They do not make outrageous demands because one person in one festival hit them with a 'non-damaging to anything but their ego' forced emote. They do not exaggerate the problem saying they cannot log in and stroll down the street without being bombarded by gangs of griefers, hell bent on making their virtual lives a living hell.

Judging from the non response to this 'issue' from anyone even remotely associated with game management, this is likely how they [Turbine] expect you to deal with your problems. And no, you will never know if they take action against the complainee. Mature people move on, trusting the powers who OWN THE GAME. If this is not satisfactory, vote with pocketbook, and your feet....

Oh I just love this dripping with sarcasm post, about passed coffee through my nose I was laughing so hard.

[whheydt]

Your fail to understand the opt out as proposed (and as I mentioned a few posts before yours): using a prank on an opted out character would still advance the prank user's deed. Everyone gets what they want.

That presupposes that the person using the emote is solely interested in advancing the deed. In another thread there was a poster who expressed an active desire to seeing the forced emote actually have an effect on someone elses character. Thus, anyone who feels that no reaction "takes away his 'fun'" plus the usual small number of actual griefers would NOT like the usual formulation of an "opt out".

Actually no I do have another option.

If they hit me with a FE once I ask them to stop politely.
If the same person hits me again I ask them to stop a bit less politely.
If the same person hits me again I report for harassment.

Eventually the person will have enough harassment reports on them that some action will be taken. I won't know what or when but I have the satisfaction of knowing there is a punishment volcano and every report against them for anything will eventually add up to something.

Unfortunately, anecdotal evidence suggests that Turbine drops all harassment reports, no matter how egregious, that include forced emotes in the cause of action in the bit bucket.

In order for your scenario to be effective Turbine would have to have the GMs actually enforce the Code of Conduct as it is written and not carve out an exception for forced emotes.

I am all for an opt-out as well.
But I don't think this will make everyone happy. Soon enough people who like the forced emotes will have a very hard time finding anyone to use them on.
Every sane person with a bit of dignity will opt out after getting hit by one of the emotes and will have no reason to enable this again in the future. Hell, even those who like forced emotes will probably make sure no one can use them on themselves.
So my prediction would be that forced emotes die out slowly with an opt-out option. having pretty much the same effect as just removing them from the game. Be it a bit more subtle .

There is an interesting conclusion to be drawn if your scenario is correct. To wit, it implies that the vast majority of players do NOT wish to be targeted by forced emotes. *IF* your scenario came to pass, Turbine--through their data mining--would be forced to face the conclusion that forced emotes were a bad idea right from inception. They'll never admit that, though, even if the scenario plays out as imagined.

--W. H. Heydt

Old Used Programmer

[Mirarian]

No, as has been shown repeatedly, no action will be taken, you are wasting your time filing the report. Turbine not only made the greifing tools, they encourage players to use them on other players, there for; by turbines terms, it isn't greifing. So no action will be taken.

Edit to add: You stand a better chance of actions being taken against you for harassing a mod with the reports.

I disagree. Though maybe you should quit if the game is giving you such a horrible outlook on things you are obviously not happy here.

When I report harassment I also add the person to my friends list with a note that they are a harasser. Amazing how many of them just poofed over time. I am no naive enough to believe my report is the only reason they got actioned or quit but I do have the satisfaction of knowing it was one more nail in the coffin.

If you read my other post you would see I firmly believe in an opt out. After all we have opt outs so we can't be spam bombed with guild invites or sparring requests why shouldn't we be able to opt out of FE's.

I am not the enemy here.

[manstan]

If you read my other post you would see I firmly believe in an opt out. After all we have opt outs so we can't be spam bombed with guild invites or sparring requests why shouldn't we be able to opt out of FE's.

I fully support an opt out too, I just don't see it ever happening. I see this as a lost cause because people will never do what it will take to get action from turbine.

Nothing is ever going to be done about this, and no amount of arguing is ever going to change that.

[Dotlbeme]

That presupposes that the person using the emote is solely interested in advancing the deed. In another thread there was a poster who expressed an active desire to seeing the forced emote actually have an effect on someone elses character. Thus, anyone who feels that no reaction "takes away his 'fun'" plus the usual small number of actual griefers would NOT like the usual formulation of an "opt out".



Unfortunately, anecdotal evidence suggests that Turbine drops all harassment reports, no matter how egregious, that include forced emotes in the cause of action in the bit bucket.

In order for your scenario to be effective Turbine would have to have the GMs actually enforce the Code of Conduct as it is written and not carve out an exception for forced emotes.



There is an interesting conclusion to be drawn if your scenario is correct. To wit, it implies that the vast majority of players do NOT wish to be targeted by forced emotes. *IF* your scenario came to pass, Turbine--through their data mining--would be forced to face the conclusion that forced emotes were a bad idea right from inception. They'll never admit that, though, even if the scenario plays out as imagined.

--W. H. Heydt

Old Used Programmer

All due respect WH, there is no way to truly know what the majority of players feel, especially from responses on this forum. People here, can only supply their point of view. It is clear there are many who deplore FEs and feel the need to express it here, but in reality, no one knows what the result would be if we took a census of all people actually playing. From Turbine's perspective it could be they enjoy the income from selling FEs. For this reason they might be reticent to comment on the 'issue', but I feel this might be an overly cynical judgement of Turbine. If they felt the 'majority' of players were being sufficiently annoyed, they would do something (but likely not tell anyone), regardless of how it affected store sales.

[SabrielofLorien]

I disagree. Though maybe you should quit if the game is giving you such a horrible outlook on things you are obviously not happy here.

When I report harassment I also add the person to my friends list with a note that they are a harasser. Amazing how many of them just poofed over time. I am no naive enough to believe my report is the only reason they got actioned or quit but I do have the satisfaction of knowing it was one more nail in the coffin.

If you read my other post you would see I firmly believe in an opt out. After all we have opt outs so we can't be spam bombed with guild invites or sparring requests why shouldn't we be able to opt out of FE's.

I am not the enemy here.

My friends list and ignore list are just not big enough ROFL.

However, good news! There's been suggestions in the suggestion forums requesting more space and flexibility be added to the "friends" list! Been requested for eons now.

Personally I think I'd like to have it renamed "enemies list". ROFLMAO.

I have to resort to PnP for this because ... players change names, kinships, outfits and servers. You just cant tell the forest for the ents these days.

WB/T will take away all my fun when they finally give us /OPTOUT.

[maxjenius]

Maybe I was not interested in your proposal. there are more people having different opinions about the problem here except you.

Your interest (or lack thereof) is irrelevant. Furthermore, it's not "my" proposal.

Making forced emotes only visible to the ones casting them sounds ridiculous to me.

Which is why the suggestion I repeated does not call for that.

So someone sees me lying on the ground while I have left that spot already? Might as well make them useable on npc's only when only the caster can see it. Then it really bothers no one.

The target undergoes nothing. The user gets credit for the deed. There is no argument that can be made against that solution other than a technical one.