Forced emotes - worse than ever

[ShinryuLOTR]

I'm not sure I understand the thinking behind a /rp flag making one immune to FEs. Wouldn't a true role-player react to being slapped with a glove or having a spider dropped down their shirt? It seems to me that those who talk the most about 'immersion' would be the one's speaking out FOR forced emotes, not against them.

To many RPers, the biggest offence possible is to have their character effectively being taken control of by someone else. The end result may be the same in some cases, for example having a spider dropped on your characters head, but the choice must be made by the target (or planned in advance by those involved).

[Lendas]

Guess what?



they don't care

[Valinus]

To many RPers, the biggest offence possible is to have their character effectively being taken control of by someone else. The end result may be the same in some cases, for example having a spider dropped on your characters head, but the choice must be made by the target (or planned in advance by those involved).

I guess I think of role-playing in a MMO as more improvisational than scripted. You react to the other players and the game environment, you don't plan for a kinnie to drop a spider on your head.

Maybe that's just me.

[Felajarko]

I'm not sure I understand the thinking behind a /rp flag making one immune to FEs. Wouldn't a true role-player react to being slapped with a glove or having a spider dropped down their shirt? It seems to me that those who talk the most about 'immersion' would be the one's speaking out FOR forced emotes, not against them.

The 'true role players' do not want to let others take control of their toon.

Of course, I don't understand the logic of having a public stage designated as a 'serious business' area, either. (I mean beyond the meta-game thinking of: we need some fix for this.) It seems to me that 'serious business' areas should be areas where either the level of danger or (dare I say?) seriousness would make even the most mischievous hobbit think twice before goofing off.

The logic is to provide a 'safe zone' from pranks so as not to disrupt a concert or other event, whether the prank is intentional or not. I have been hit while standing at a mailbox at the camp just outside of Lothlorein. The person hit me than ran away. At least in the safe areas, that couldn't happen.

Really, though, FEs will never be the only way (and probably aren't the best way) to annoy role-players if that's your goal. There's plenty of silliness you can muster by emoting while standing on top of them or between them. I'm not sure that a toggle or universal removal is going to assure a peaceful concert on a public server.

A toggle from FEs will help reduce the amount. there was not as much complaining before the FEs came out and pranksters saw how easy it was. A toggle won't stop all the griefing, but it will help a lot.

Perhaps a more interesting (and perhaps, more fitting) solution would be to have 'Potions of Focus' available that "put the user in a state of such concentration that they are oblivious to the antics of passers by." They could be placed on vendors, in the turbine store, available a festival rewards and rewards for role-play type quests.I prefer this 'solution' because:a) It seems more in keeping with the 'buff vs. debuff' nature of the game.b) It makes more logical sense (at least to me)c) It conceivably provides a reward for role-play type quests beyond the intrinsicd) It MIGHT be easier to implement.

The proposed toggle will make it easier than having to pop a potion. A potion makes the player reactive to FEs, not proactive. Why should a player have to pop a potion after getting hit or before an event?

If I'm being honest, though, I don't really care for either side of the argument. I'm just a lurker.

Then why even post in this thread? I'm not trying to tell you how and where to post (Forced Posting), but really. If you don't have a dog in the fight, why bring your cat?

[Valinus]

The 'true role players' do not want to let others take control of their toon.

No one is taking control of their 'toon.' Someone is forcing their 'toon' to react to external stimuli. There is a subtle, but distinct, difference. If I tickle my niece she squirms and giggles. . . some might even say she loses control. I do not, however, control her.

The logic is to provide a 'safe zone' from pranks so as not to disrupt a concert or other event, whether the prank is intentional or not. I have been hit while standing at a mailbox at the camp just outside of Lothlorein. The person hit me than ran away. At least in the safe areas, that couldn't happen.

I understand the reasoning. I do not understand the logic. Why is a concert 'serious business'? Aside from the fact that a certain portion of the player-base would like it to be that way.

The proposed toggle will make it easier than having to pop a potion. A potion makes the player reactive to FEs, not proactive. Why should a player have to pop a potion after getting hit or before an event?

Being handed a new suit of armor would be easier than questing for one, too. It is not, however, in the spirit of the game. (Or at least not my understanding of the spirit of the game.)

Raiders eat before a boss fight. Why is it a terrible thing to ask RPers to eat before a concert? MMOs are typically about the tension between what you want to do/get and the difficulty of accomplishing such. 'Pranksters' (for lack of a better word) have gone through some amount of effort to get the items. Why is it unreasonable to expect concert-goers to exert some effort to counter those items?

Particularly because, I don't understand the appeal of the immersion-breaking notion of people running around in a prank-proof bubble just because Turbine deems it so.

Then why even post in this thread? I'm not trying to tell you how and where to post (Forced Posting), but really. If you don't have a dog in the fight, why bring your cat?

I'm interested in the logic (or lack thereof) and the semantics. I also enjoy LOTRO and thought perhaps a positive suggestion (whether appealing to you or ever implemented) might improve the level of discourse and perhaps (but probably not) the game.

Ultimately, I don't care who wins the war. I do, however, care deeply for the damage it does to the countryside.

[whheydt]

This is aimed at the folks who are adamant that FE's cannot be griefing.

Scenario: I am standing in a public place engaging in a bit of RP with a family member. (Something I do often).

Someone comes and hits us with a FE disrupting our RP.

I politely ask them to stop and resume our RP.

They hit us again as soon as the Cool down is over even though they have been asked to stop.

I ask them again to stop and resume our RP.

They hit us again as soon as the Cool down is over.

At this point it is obvious they are not going to stop. We have 2 choices left to us. Give up on our RP or move to another location. In either case they have disrupted our gameplay and that by definition makes it greifing.

Most of us in this thread are NOT asking that the FE toys be removed. We are asking to be permitted to opt out while you the FE person still get the deed incrementation.

Well...you would have another option, but only if Turbine GMs were instructed to actually enforce the rules that Turbine has published for the players. But since there is no enforcement of those rules when it comes to abusive use of forced emotes...yeah, you have no effective options. You can still report the jerk, though. Maybe if Turbine gets enough reports of misuse of forced emotes they might decide that it's cheaper to implement a fix than pay their GMs to close reports without acting on them. Going to take a LOT of reports, though.

--W. H. Heydt

Old Used Programmer

[Cakellene]

People shouldn't have to spend money (real or virtual) in order to avoid griefers.

[Mirarian]

Well...you would have another option, but only if Turbine GMs were instructed to actually enforce the rules that Turbine has published for the players. But since there is no enforcement of those rules when it comes to abusive use of forced emotes...yeah, you have no effective options. You can still report the jerk, though. Maybe if Turbine gets enough reports of misuse of forced emotes they might decide that it's cheaper to implement a fix than pay their GMs to close reports without acting on them. Going to take a LOT of reports, though.

--W. H. Heydt

Old Used Programmer

Oh I agree and I do report.

I was merely addressing the people who claim it is not in any way harassment or disruptive.

[Rampagingdeath]

How can you possibly have issues with a non-argument? Are you really that desperate for an argument?

How can you possibly think that you can sum up 14/15 pages in one sentence?

touche sir

Desperate for an argument? not possible here, far too many precious sensitive types to really let rip.

heres some kittens - aren't they just gorgeous

http://images.pictureshunt.com/pics/k/kittens-8371.jpg

[whheydt]

From time to time some poster will float the idea of linking a forced emote "opt out" to the /rp flag.

With that in mind, here is a suggestion for an interim proposal that will provide a way to test Turbine's willingness to actually solve the problem of forced emotes, the social good will of those that like to use forced emotes, and a measure of relative popularity of forced emotes.

Doing this will require two rules, one applied by players, and one by Turbine:

1. Social rule: Forced emotes may not be used on characters with /rp on (i.e. "white label").

2. Turbine rule: GMs are to enforce the CoC rules when a forced emote is used on a character with /rp on upon receipt of a harassment ticket. This enforcement will be the usual escalation series of warn/infract/temp ban/etc.

It will be up to players to get the word out to leave "white label" characters alone. It will be up to Turbine to actually enforce the rules, and not take "I didn't know" as an excuse.

This will not, of course, actually solve the problem, but it should reduce it by weeding out some of the more egregious abusers of forced emotes as well as causing the rest of exercise some caution...such as making sure they have a willing target. It does, on the other hand have the potential to reveal how many players dislike being targeted by forced emotes. If your server goes "white" in short order, that should tell you something.

We've had two Turbine employees post in this thread. Is Turbine willing to meet the players half-way on this and enforce the rules under those conditions?

--W. H. Heydt

Old Used Programmer

[Felajarko]

No one is taking control of their 'toon.' Someone is forcing their 'toon' to react to external stimuli. There is a subtle, but distinct, difference. If I tickle my niece she squirms and giggles. . . some might even say she loses control. I do not, however, control her.

To many, its the same thing. If a toon is dancing and an FE makes them stop, drop and faint, then they consider the prankster to be taking control of their toon.

I understand the reasoning. I do not understand the logic. Why is a concert 'serious business'? Aside from the fact that a certain portion of the player-base would like it to be that way.

Its rather rude to prank people while they are trying to enjoy a concert.

Being handed a new suit of armor would be easier than questing for one, too. It is not, however, in the spirit of the game. (Or at least not my understanding of the spirit of the game.)

Raiders eat before a boss fight. Why is it a terrible thing to ask RPers to eat before a concert? MMOs are typically about the tension between what you want to do/get and the difficulty of accomplishing such. 'Pranksters' (for lack of a better word) have gone through some amount of effort to get the items. Why is it unreasonable to expect concert-goers to exert some effort to counter those items?

So are you advocating giving players exp for going to a concert? By your logic they should receive exp for listening to music. And there is very little effort getting the tokens to get 300 prank consumables. Its one of the easier grinds in LOTRO. There is no reason concert-goers should have to protect from a situation Turbine created.

Particularly because, I don't understand the appeal of the immersion-breaking notion of people running around in a prank-proof bubble just because Turbine deems it so.

LOTRO is PvE, not PvP (save for the Moors, of course). Many prank haters look at FEs the same. Why should people have to look over their shoulders to avoid pranks? Give players a choice.

I'm interested in the logic (or lack thereof) and the semantics. I also enjoy LOTRO and thought perhaps a positive suggestion (whether appealing to you or ever implemented) might improve the level of discourse and perhaps (but probably not) the game.

Ultimately, I don't care who wins the war. I do, however, care deeply for the damage it does to the countryside.

Arguing semantics on this topic is useless. There have been many positive suggestions and all get argued and discussed and some like them, some hate them. As has been stated TOO MANY TIMES, until turbine takes action, we can only rely on the thick skins of RPers and the maturity of the pranksters (Yeah right to both). Pranks or no pranks, there is no dmage to the country side. Just to the number of players when the FE haters get tired of the pranks or the pranksters get bored and leave.

[Cakellene]

The onus of disseminating information and enforcement would both be on Turbine.

[Valinus]

So are you advocating giving players exp for going to a concert? By your logic they should receive exp for listening to music. And there is very little effort getting the tokens to get 300 prank consumables. Its one of the easier grinds in LOTRO. There is no reason concert-goers should have to protect from a situation Turbine created.

Many (if not most) raids are done at level-cap. Few are doing them for XP. They're doing them to get something they want. It seems there is a portion (large or small) of the player-base who would like to be immune to FEs. I'm simply suggesting a means for them to work toward what they want.

As for the effort involved in gaining prank consumables, it is irrelevant. I never said what effort would be required to gain the counter. If doing one instance where you talk to Frodo for ten minutes gave you 365 potions that each made you immune to FEs for 24 hours that would be presumably more palatable than if it took 50 levels of grinding to get one. I'm not going to try to find the proper balance point. I'm just stating that I don't think it is unreasonable for players in an MMO to have to do SOMETHING to get something they want.

The heart of the disagreement (our disagreement. . . not necessarily the disagreement at large) seems to be the notion that "There is no reason concert-goers should have to protect from a situation Turbine created."

One could argue that the /RP-flag should make them immune from aggro because their idea of role-playing is joining Sauron and burning Archet. They can't because it doesn't fit the parameters Turbine created when designing the game. The festival consumables were also designed by Turbine. I believe it is my responsibility to operate within the parameters their existence creates.

If I go into the woods, I have to protect myself from a situation Turbine created. If I go to a concert and wish to be undisturbed, I don't find it unreasonable to have to protect myself from another Turbine creation.

There is a difference, however, between being subjected to a prank and being griefed.

I fully support pressuring Turbine to take disciplinary action against those who consistently impede others' play. That is not the same thing as immunity to FEs, though.

In short, I think that it is entirely reasonable to expect players to do SOMETHING to EARN something that they want (FE immunity), but the only thing they should have to do to mitigate griefing is report it to a GM.

[ShinryuLOTR]

I guess I think of role-playing in a MMO as more improvisational than scripted. You react to the other players and the game environment, you don't plan for a kinnie to drop a spider on your head.

Maybe that's just me.

That is very true. In free form RP, you don't always plan the "set up" but in all RP you expect to control the reaction as it pertains to your own character. Anything else is considered extremely poor form, regardless of how random the RP is. There's a world of difference between:

ShinryuLOTR: *ShinryuLOTR opens a jar of spiders and tosses the contents towards Valinus, forcing them to drop to the floor, swatting the pests off and shrieking madly*

and

ShinryuLOTR: *ShinryuLOTR opens a jar of spiders and tosses the contents towards Valinus*
Valinus: *Valinus drops to the floor, swatting the pests off and shrieking madly*

Adding an actual unavoidsble visible reaction to the forced event is basically just adding insult to injury for those who take ownership of their characters seriously.

[Valinus]

That is very true. In free form RP, you don't always plan the "set up" but in all RP you expect to control the reaction as it pertains to your own character. Anything else is considered extremely poor form, regardless of how random the RP is. There's a world of difference between:

ShinryuLOTR: *ShinryuLOTR opens a jar of spiders and tosses the contents towards Valinus, forcing them to drop to the floor, swatting the pests off and shrieking madly*

and

ShinryuLOTR: *ShinryuLOTR opens a jar of spiders and tosses the contents towards Valinus*
Valinus: *Valinus drops to the floor, swatting the pests off and shrieking madly*

Adding an actual unavoidsble visible reaction to the forced event is basically just adding insult to injury for those who take ownership of their characters seriously.

A valid point. I was looking more at the 'realism' of involuntary and impulsive reactions, but you certainly eloquently explained the viewpoint I was questioning.

[Felajarko]

Many (if not most) raids are done at level-cap. Few are doing them for XP. They're doing them to get something they want. It seems there is a portion (large or small) of the player-base who would like to be immune to FEs. I'm simply suggesting a means for them to work toward what they want.

As for the effort involved in gaining prank consumables, it is irrelevant. I never said what effort would be required to gain the counter. If doing one instance where you talk to Frodo for ten minutes gave you 365 potions that each made you immune to FEs for 24 hours that would be presumably more palatable than if it took 50 levels of grinding to get one. I'm not going to try to find the proper balance point. I'm just stating that I don't think it is unreasonable for players in an MMO to have to do SOMETHING to get something they want.

The heart of the disagreement (our disagreement. . . not necessarily the disagreement at large) seems to be the notion that "There is no reason concert-goers should have to protect from a situation Turbine created."

One could argue that the /RP-flag should make them immune from aggro because their idea of role-playing is joining Sauron and burning Archet. They can't because it doesn't fit the parameters Turbine created when designing the game. The festival consumables were also designed by Turbine. I believe it is my responsibility to operate within the parameters their existence creates.

If I go into the woods, I have to protect myself from a situation Turbine created. If I go to a concert and wish to be undisturbed, I don't find it unreasonable to have to protect myself from another Turbine creation.

There is a difference, however, between being subjected to a prank and being griefed.

I fully support pressuring Turbine to take disciplinary action against those who consistently impede others' play. That is not the same thing as immunity to FEs, though.

In short, I think that it is entirely reasonable to expect players to do SOMETHING to EARN something that they want (FE immunity), but the only thing they should have to do to mitigate griefing is report it to a GM.

There is so much wrong with this post, and I think you know that. You said you want to argue semantics, I will. the crux is intent. I had a whole big post accusing you of being a troll, but I deleted it and chalked it up to a knee-jerk reaction on my part. I just can't see how you can know so much about MMOs and RPing yet not get the simple idea being conveyed here. I will leave it here so as not to turn a disagreement and lack of understanding into a stupid fight.

[Cakellene]

I believe the term is godmoding and is a big, big no-no.

[Felajarko]

I believe the term is godmoding and is a big, big no-no.

this ^^

[Dworin]

People shouldn't have to spend money (real or virtual) in order to avoid griefers.

This. ^^

[Deaphret]

My two cents. Depending on what I am doing or the mood i am in, FE could be a pain, and inconveniece, or nothing to worry about. I have used them in festival areas for a time but now that I have a long list of uncompleted deeds that clutter up my deed list.

I have this question to ask those that think FE are not big deal. Would you approve changes that allow them to effect a target no matter what the target is doing such as in combat, on a stable horse, using an item or node, ....etc? This would be the other end of the spectrum, make FE usable on all regardless of the target's state. As it is now, there are already limits to their use, what really is the problem by providing additional limits, especially if those limits are narrow in scope.

I did like the idea posed that an individual could purchase an timed immunity to the FE.

(also to the thread about the forum getting better, I logged in to comment here and was logged out before I could submit)

[manstan]

How can you possibly think that you can sum up 14/15 pages in one sentence?

touche sir

Desperate for an argument? not possible here, far too many precious sensitive types to really let rip.

heres some kittens - aren't they just gorgeous

http://images.pictureshunt.com/pics/k/kittens-8371.jpg

Think it hell, I have twice, watch I'll do it again.

This argument has 2 sides, one wants to be able to opt out of forced emotes and the other doesn't want them to opt out of forced emotes. The biggest share of this arguing is nothing more then differing opinions, justifications and explanations. Nether side is going to given an inch. One side just wants to be left be while playing the other doesn't want to lose their ability to harass other players. One side is giving explanations as to why they want to be left be to play, and the other is giving justifications as to why it is OK to harass other players so shouldn't lose the ability to do so.
As I said, the language may be extremely biased, but that really is what this argument is all about. If the mods came through and deleted every post that was just a personal opinion these threads wouldn't be but a page or two long.

[maxjenius]

In short, I think that it is entirely reasonable to expect players to do SOMETHING to EARN something that they want (FE immunity).

Then you must be OK with the notion of making players earn the ability to disable Kinship, Fellowship, sparring and adoption invites, not to mention the abilities to put characters on ignore and to mute player music.

How can you possibly think that you can sum up 14/15 pages in one sentence?

It can be summed up this way (and has been many times): technical issues aside ('cause none of us know what those really are), an opt-out toggle which allows the prankster to advance the deed has no downside whatsoever and no reasonable argument can be made against it.

Desperate for an argument? not possible here, far too many precious sensitive types to really let rip.

By which you mean "Nasty, insulting flame war" not "intellectual debate." But it's easy to claim you're ready to rock-n-roll in an environment where only Kenny G is allowed.

[whheydt]

I did like the idea posed that an individual could purchase an timed immunity to the FE.

That idea suffers from the same defects as the attempt to implement a "time limited" XP suppression Store item.

--W. H. Heydt

Old Used Programmer

[Darlgon]

No one is taking control of their 'toon.' Someone is forcing their 'toon' to react to external stimuli. There is a subtle, but distinct, difference. If I tickle my niece she squirms and giggles. . . some might even say she loses control. I do not, however, control her.

Raiders eat before a boss fight. Why is it a terrible thing to ask RPers to eat before a concert? MMOs are typically about the tension between what you want to do/get and the difficulty of accomplishing such. 'Pranksters' (for lack of a better word) have gone through some amount of effort to get the items. Why is it unreasonable to expect concert-goers to exert some effort to counter those items?

My first thought to the first paragraph is. "Child and Family Services might disagree if your niece reported you."

My second is, Dont give Turbine ideas to add to the store. They created this monster by creating the forced emotes in the first place.

I have been asked to edit this post. Please excuse any implications. Further reply below

[Rampagingdeath]

Think it hell, I have twice, watch I'll do it again.

This argument has 2 sides, one wants to be able to opt out of forced emotes and the other doesn't want them to opt out of forced emotes. The biggest share of this arguing is nothing more then differing opinions, justifications and explanations. Nether side is going to given an inch. One side just wants to be left be while playing the other doesn't want to lose their ability to harass other players. One side is giving explanations as to why they want to be left be to play, and the other is giving justifications as to why it is OK to harass other players so shouldn't lose the ability to do so.
As I said, the language may be extremely biased, but that really is what this argument is all about. If the mods came through and deleted every post that was just a personal opinion these threads wouldn't be but a page or two long.

And you wonder why I keep telling the likes of you that it's your way or the highway - you have zero capability to offer anything other than your skewed view of everything don't you?