Technically, this isn't griefing of course - people are just exercising their right to hyperbole.
The rules of playing an Onslaught explicitly involve attacking flagged players. Since they have made no effort to change the fact that a player's aoe will flag them to an onslaught villain at any point in time, that means that it is intended that OVs can get players flagged by moving near them while they are aoeing. This is how the game is built, and has remained. I think it would be unjust for any GM to take action against a player for playing the game in the intended manner.
If Cryptic wants to take a stance on this behavior being inappropriate, then they shouldn't have that be expressed through GM actions, as that would be an inherently deceptive way to go about it. Instead, if they decide to do so, it should be done via disabling the ability of any aoe power to flag a player to an OV. You can't just tell people "Do this, these are the rules of the game" and then punish them for following the rules you have set forth.
It'd be like if they added Clarence to BASH, and then GMs started taking action against any pvper who attacked people who were trying to fight Clarence. Millenium City is currently a PvP zone, meaning that if you are in millenium city you need to be aware of the presence of OVs and make sure you don't strike them. You can't just enter a PvP zone and then complain when pvp happens because you didn't observe the game mechanics that are in place.
Technically, griefing is what a GM interprets it to be. If a player is being disruptive by doing something that possibly wasn't an intended "feature". The rules on griefing and trolling and that sort of thing are not always black and white, and judgment calls need to be made. That call could land the offending players with a stern talking to, or a suspension, but let's be honest, we don't really have a GM to take any sort of action.
You might think GM action is unjust, but really, just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should. People doing this know they're griefing players. They're also making the event not fun for players. One guy can ruin the event for 20 people at a time. Knowingly harassing players in a manner like this is already "unjust" so any punishment that comes should be expected. I doubt Cryptic is fine with just letting a few dudes ruin an event like this, and I'm willing to bet that something will be done about it, whether during this event or one in the future (system changes, not GM action).
I do agree that they shouldn't just start handing out bans all willy-nilly, but the griefers should be reprimanded for it, but again, we'd need a GM online to do so, so nope.
Saying that "the devs are obviously not against it because they haven't built a deterrent to do it" is rationalization, not proof of them thinking this is how events should go.
15.2 Without limiting the foregoing, in addition to the User Content rules set forth in Section 16, you agree not to take any of the following actions:
l. using or exploiting any bugs, errors, or design flaws to obtain unauthorized access to the Service or to gain an unfair advantage over other players;
Being able to disrupt a Clarence fight with an OV = Design flaw.
Exploiting Clarence's damage against a player along with their own AoE aggro, with OV's damage output added on = Gaining an unfair advantage from said exploitation.
What's more to be said? If someone gets GM-slapped for this, boo hoo, cry me a river.
It is obviously the intent of the Onslaught System that no one should feel obligated to participate, and no one should be forced to. If that wasn't the case, then an Onslaught Villain would be able to hurt anyone, not just anyone who hurt him first. There was a system put in place to prevent that, but they didn't see it coming for this event.
Saying it's intended behavior is pure rationalization, nothing more.
The problems with ovs stepping into unflagged players aoe has been well documented. I think they should use systems that have worked for other games. Simply unless the unflagged player targets the OV/flagged player directly their spells and abilities don't affect them.
If you target them directly with an ability (Aoe or single target) then you become flagged. (the same goes for healing/buffing/shielding/ect someone who is flagged) This should also work with passives and the aoe components attached to them.
here Nepht to clarify; sorry for the wait, had to type it up in lunchtime at work. It hopefully covers several problems on BOTH sides.
Onslaught –Toggle on to take part WHY?
Because of the ones interfering in others play, trying to force people to attack them by getting in the way of likely AOE attacks.
A Current popular place to fight is behind Defender’s station(convenient for suicide on turrets when timer running out), which is the teleport in place for Ren Center. So anyone with a damage/buff aura up when they teleport in, is going to get tagged. Suggestion:
Add a toggle to take part in OV attacks.
OV’s to be considered Neutral/non attackable unless you are taking part by toggling ON. So you cannot target them, AT ALL.
OV’s to NOT be able to attack OPEN world bosses. That’s not what they are for. Harass the Dev’s to make Becomes of them, if you want them for normal play.(and I use the word Normal very loosely. A picture of a herd of Mini Gronds, springs to mind.)
1. Wax on, wax off… sorry toggle on toggle off. When you toggle on, your normal taking part timer starts. You CANNOT turn off your toggle while the timer is running. You started it, you finish it.
2. Hit and run heroes – OV can’t change zones. Nor should ‘heroes’ be able to. So no changing zones, entering instances or Alerts while you are toggled as taking part . Run away, where they can chase you, they need tokens too. This will sort out another problem.
3. But I’m not taking part- People in Alerts being tagged as taking part , due to healing someone still with a timer running.
4. It wasn’t me, it was my pets- when not toggled as taking part, your pets, whether from devices or powers, view the OV as neutral/non attackable. So they won’t ‘accidently’ help.
5. What me? I didn’t heal him. If someone is toggled on as a ‘hero’, you cannot target them for anything unless you are also toggled. They are unaffected by any teammate/close people’s auras/spec trees.
6. OK, who is taking part? – The OV have a big sign above their head, the ‘heroes’ attacking should also have a sign, so the OV knows who is a spectator and who is just trying to hide. A Target symbol would do.
Any other problems on both sides, I missed and yes Number 6 is a problem. I've watched too many try to hide in crowds or pretend they are spectators.
Last night, some apologists were going on at length in the Clarence channel about how if we don't want to be griefed, all we have to do is not use AoEs.
Now, completely aside from the fact that some ATs and a few FFs are built almost entirely around AoEs (Impulse, I'm looking at you), there's the simple fact that unless the AoEs come out when Clarence unleashes his attack-toy minions, all you've done is trade the instant-death from the griefing OVs for the "death of a thousand cuts" coming from the toys. For the sake of the griefers' own bizarre entertainment, they're forcing the rest of the playerbase to choose how they want to die, or choose not to try to stop Clarence at all.
(And yes, this is griefing. There is precisely one Clarence-spawn area that's in the same place as an Onslaught target; there was, for instance, no good reason whatsoever for a Medusa to be running around in the Clarence fight near the Prison, as the Onslaught target was several blocks away. The only conceivable reason for this to be done was so that the Medusa player could get lots of cheap kills by combining their own damage with that of Clarence, knowing that few if any of the players in the area would be fighting the OV at all.)
"Science teaches us to expect -- demand -- more than just eerie mysteries. What use is a puzzle that can't be solved? Patience is fine, but I'm not going to stop asking the universe to make sense!"
15.2 Without limiting the foregoing, in addition to the User Content rules set forth in Section 16, you agree not to take any of the following actions:
l. using or exploiting any bugs, errors, or design flaws to obtain unauthorized access to the Service or to gain an unfair advantage over other players;
Being able to disrupt a Clarence fight with an OV = Design flaw.
Exploiting Clarence's damage against a player along with their own AoE aggro, with OV's damage output added on = Gaining an unfair advantage from said exploitation.
What's more to be said? If someone gets GM-slapped for this, boo hoo, cry me a river.
This is it exactly, the very idea of the OV system is that you get to choose to opt in and using cosmic villain fights to cause people to unintentionally opt in is an exploit. This is not how OV was intended. And then to attack players that are completely unaware that they've been flagged is cheep and underhanded. What's more, the idea that someone wouldn't realize that this is exploitative is beyond reasonable, they know they're breaking the rules, but unless something is done they have no reason to stop.
While in theory the OV system is not a bad one and by and large seems to have a decent check and balance system in place to prevent abuse (don't attack them, they can't attack you), there does seem to be a loophole that is being exploited by certain...less than mature players that is indeed causing problems for others in the game. Whether this was a limitation in the code or simply an oversight in the long term application of the system I could not say. However, there have been indeed multiple instances of OVers rushing into Clarence battles, getting tagged by AOE attacks not intended for them, and then using that to gank other players trying to fight the big bear. Its frequency, as well as the offenders active refusal to listen when they are asked to not OV around Clarence, points to some definite malicious intent that should be curbed as soon as possible.
So yeah, put me down as a vote for either some form of whitelist to avoid being accidentally flagged for OV pvp or set up the areas around Clarence that nullify OV devices. The only people who would be hurt or upset by that are griefers and, frankly, they are the ones bring it on themselves.
Quite.
How erudite. Are you sure you're on the right boards?
I see nothing wrong with this situation at all. In my opinion, I think most of you are over reacting to this. I've grown up in MMO games where open world pvp and anything of that nature gives way to server politics and drama. Usually things like that will make a community develop and grow, form relationships, etc etc.
I think the fact that players that want to play a villain in the form of an OV, and being able to foil the heroes at every turn, is what makes a true villian.
It's my opinion, but I think this shouldn't be changed.
EDIT: We've been spoiled by having a choice of whether or not to bring the fight, in terms of instances pvp mini games and dueling. Now that almost "true" pvp has come to Champions, many of you decide to try their hand and once again adjust the hand of creation in their favor. The OVs crashing down on clarence fights brings a new dynamic to the challenge scale in this game. This community has an ugly history of making suggestions that they later regret. This may sound mean and elitist, but don't ruin this for the some of us that yearn for a challenge.
This needs to be fixed, it's beyond ridiculous now; there were 6 of them at that last clarence battle, and it ended up failing, because there's no way to battle all of those aoes at once, you're just instantly killed if you get anywhere close to clarence, or trying to attack him.
people tricking others into attacking them is not really the way it should be. myself, I haven't ever been able to se an OV villain since it started lol
As much as you want your challenge and open PvP, try and remember for a moment that not everybody is strong enough to actually have fun in that situation nor have the drive to become stronger.
Try and look at things from the point of view of the average player instead of the point of view of a monster build.
but that aside, something needs to be done about this... you know, a PvE method of earning tokens on both sides that is only a little less lucrative than stomping all over players rather than not being worth the effort.
In all things, a calm heart must prevail.
Member of Paragon Dawn: Because some people like friendly helpful communities.
Yeah some things are broken... no I don't use/abuse them.. where would be the fun in that?
I see nothing wrong with this situation at all. In my opinion, I think most of you are over reacting to this. I've grown up in MMO games where open world pvp and anything of that nature gives way to server politics and drama. Usually things like that will make a community develop and grow, form relationships, etc etc.
I think the fact that players that want to play a villain in the form of an OV, and being able to foil the heroes at every turn, is what makes a true villian.
It's my opinion, but I think this shouldn't be changed.
EDIT: We've been spoiled by having a choice of whether or not to bring the fight, in terms of instances pvp mini games and dueling. Now that almost "true" pvp has come to Champions, many of you decide to try their hand and once again adjust the hand of creation in their favor. The OVs crashing down on clarence fights brings a new dynamic to the challenge scale in this game. This community has an ugly history of making suggestions that they later regret. This may sound mean and elitist, but don't ruin this for the some of us that yearn for a challenge.
You're missing the point. This isn't an open world PVP MMO. The Onslaught system was designed for players to engage OVs if they choose to. Clarence was designed to be strictly a fight between him and heroes and has no design correlation with Onslaught. OVs have no business butting into a Clarence fight because the fight has nothing to do with PVP. This "new dynamic" talk sounds like someone trying to use their personal rationalization to justify shoving PVP down the throats of players who didn't ask for it.
The kind of politics and drama you're talking about are exclusive to open world PVP MMOs. Those MMO players choose to play open world pvp so they open themselves up to whatever is expected from free range PVP. That doesn't apply here.
Well, another OV standing guard at the reward circle at the end of a Clarence fight. There is no way that this is not exploiting a bad design flaw just for the sake of griefing players or as some like to rationalize "playing the villain".
Come on Cryptic, fix this. Even if, you like the idea of roaming OVs in the game, this is neither fair nor fun.
ETA:
Well, I got a tell from the griefer thanking me for the pic in game a few minutes ago *shrugs...humans*
Post edited by bazodee on
I don't like Sigs, but I'll leave this here anyway. At least I'm not to trying to hypnotise you with moving things!
This is commonplace griefing, nothing more. Shame on you, Caliga, for even trying to give it a hint of respectability. There is only one way to defeat griefing behavior, and that's to code it out. Hope they're on the stick, because if they don't come up with something by Thursday, their event has pretty much been trashed. We've lost a week to this idiocy as it is.
I see nothing wrong with this situation at all. In my opinion, I think most of you are over reacting to this. I've grown up in MMO games where open world pvp and anything of that nature gives way to server politics and drama. Usually things like that will make a community develop and grow, form relationships, etc etc.
I think the fact that players that want to play a villain in the form of an OV, and being able to foil the heroes at every turn, is what makes a true villian.
It's my opinion, but I think this shouldn't be changed.
EDIT: We've been spoiled by having a choice of whether or not to bring the fight, in terms of instances pvp mini games and dueling. Now that almost "true" pvp has come to Champions, many of you decide to try their hand and once again adjust the hand of creation in their favor. The OVs crashing down on clarence fights brings a new dynamic to the challenge scale in this game. This community has an ugly history of making suggestions that they later regret. This may sound mean and elitist, but don't ruin this for the some of us that yearn for a challenge.
I didn't buy into a open world PvP game though, I bought into this one. If open world events are now PvP I'll ether have to stop playing the open world events or stop playing the game.
Assuming there is a way to make the coding for it to work, then I have a potential solution to this, although it's more of a long-term solution that might take some time to implement. This is -also- assuming this hasn't been suggested already. If so, consider this my endorsement for the idea. XD
How about instead of turning OVs off make it so unflagged players aoe can't affect them unless the player targets the OV directly. Alternatively the only way to flag is to click on an option in your portrait.
Well, there you go.
Make it so that OVs are unaffected by anything that has AoE properties(Attacks, Passives, Advantages, etc) by any PC that -isn't- tagged for OPvP(Onslaught PvP). This would make it so that the only way to initiate OPvP is for the player to directly target an OV and attack them. this would include attacks that require direct-targeting but also have AoE properties(Ex. Avalanche). Seeing as how Heroes are the ones that have to initiate the first attack on OVs anyway, this would give players more direct control on when they want to OPvP, and at the same time allow OVs to remain involved in events such as Clarence while protecting players from accidentally tagging OVs when they're focusing on other mobs. It's also a way to protect lower-level/newer players from accidentally becoming a target from OVs roaming about while they're questing through Westside, etc. This could also make it easier for admins to pinpoint cases of legitimate grieving over instances such as Clarence and other world events. Keep things fun, but fair, I say.
Things like putting out extra turrets onto the map or 'Anti OV zones' just to discourage people from using OVs just sounds like a bad idea to me in the long run. Putting more and more restrictions on players that want to do Supervillain Onslaught content is just going to drive more people away from it sooner or later. I can see both sides of the argument, but having situations where people are -forced- into PvP in a game that wasn't designed as Open-world PvP is getting into ugly territory. I feel that this would be the best overall solution, as it allows those who like the challenge situations like these can bring to make the choice to do so for themselves as well. Thoughts?
is attacking clarence players with OV actually bannable? lol
It is if the moderators choose to enforce it. Personally I'd hope that most people get banned for a few days rather then a lifetime ban but there are people doing this and then taunting other players in chat about it. That just seems egregious. It's hard to argue against that kind of behavior. I doubt there'd be a MMORPG that would be sorry to see someone like that gone.
Make a device with a toggle necessary to interact with either OVs or players flagged to fight OVs. Poof, back to entirely consensual PvP. Call it a data collection device or something.
If damage and healing auras can flag you that should have been in at ground zero. The internet is old enough so that every game dev knows if something can be used to grief it will be for as much as it can, whether that was intended game play or not.
I figured this would happen with events so I've just been sitting them out since OVs came out.
This is my Risian Corvette. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
How erudite. Are you sure you're on the right boards?
Thank you. Honestly I'm just calling it as I see it. This isn't my first "I know it looks like griefing but its totally/honestly/technically not griefing because..." discussion and honestly if you cut through the word salad and double talk the issue really is quite clear cut.
The bottom line that the apologists here and in game are doing their best to ignore, downplay, or deflect is that there wouldn't be a problem at all if some of the OVers would just stop being overly large male appendages and not bring the OVs to the Clarence fights. I don't think anyone has a problem with PVP in general or the OVs in particular. No one is really calling for a total ban on OVs in the Zone. It's just that the system is being abused in this instance and there is a call from the player base to find a way to curb it. If the OVs can't or wont police themselves and show some respect to the players who don't want to PVP then it falls to the Devs to implement code changes that can stop or prevent the abuse.
The sad part is that by continuing to defend or rationalize the abuse the apologists and offenders are only not only further tarnishing the reputation of OVs in general (including the players who aren't abusing the system) but providing all the more reason why any kind of open world PVP in CO is bad idea. Doesn't exactly inspire much trust or confidence in one's ability to properly drive a car when they can't even handle a go-kart responsibly.
As for me being on the right board, we'll see. Considering that in last Cryptic game I was involved with there seemed to be a rather unhealthy relationship between the Devs and the resident griefers I'm very interested to see how this pans out. So far CO seems to be better on dealing with and de-incentivizing griefing and this is the first real instance of it I've seen to date. Hopefully this just ended up being an oversight that will be corrected soon.
The right way to handle OVs is probably to classify it as a form of dueling -- duelists cannot be affected by outside characters, and duels are started by right-click on the character to be dueled. However, I suspect it's tricky to actually implement.
All I can say is that between this mess and the bugged-out nature of the Naughty Into Nice mission, if something isn't done I'm going to give this whole winter thing a pass this year (for the first time ever). It's just not worth the hassle. At least in STO's winter event, I don't have to engage in PvP unless I want to.
Oh, and Caliga - not all of us are running around with nothing but 40s. Rudolph the Red-Nosed Pain Deer is a Christmas-only toon, so he's around 18 now. Spearmint, my new cold-based toon (so I can try out the new icicle power in-game, once he gets up that high) is 14. Hell, my only 40s are toons that are semi-retired, because I have lots of alts. If you believe both OV and Clarence should be 40-only fights, should they not then be instanced, so as not to be inconvenienced by lesser, non-godlike characters getting in their way? Or is it your contention that open-world content should be pitched exclusively to those at level cap, and new players need not apply?
"Science teaches us to expect -- demand -- more than just eerie mysteries. What use is a puzzle that can't be solved? Patience is fine, but I'm not going to stop asking the universe to make sense!"
I see nothing wrong with this situation at all. In my opinion, I think most of you are over reacting to this. I've grown up in MMO games where open world pvp and anything of that nature gives way to server politics and drama. Usually things like that will make a community develop and grow, form relationships, etc etc.
I think the fact that players that want to play a villain in the form of an OV, and being able to foil the heroes at every turn, is what makes a true villian.
It's my opinion, but I think this shouldn't be changed.
EDIT: We've been spoiled by having a choice of whether or not to bring the fight, in terms of instances pvp mini games and dueling. Now that almost "true" pvp has come to Champions, many of you decide to try their hand and once again adjust the hand of creation in their favor. The OVs crashing down on clarence fights brings a new dynamic to the challenge scale in this game. This community has an ugly history of making suggestions that they later regret. This may sound mean and elitist, but don't ruin this for the some of us that yearn for a challenge.
You really should stop trying to gank me when ima bear farming -_-"
Nepht and Dr Deflecto on primus
They all thought I was out of the game....But I'm holding all the lockboxes now..
I'll......FOAM FINGER YOUR BACK!
This may sound mean and elitist, but don't ruin this for the some of us that yearn for a challenge.
Urr... doesn't your main use Haymaker? Meaning he's totally immune to OVs unless he attacks them on purpose? Honestly, all the OVs have not directly affected me at all for Clarence hunting, since I've been using sniper rifle, but when an event calls for wiping out a bag of 10 million hit points several hundred times, my interest goes down.
Actually, that's an alternative: if I could hunt down OVs for event tokens, they'd be a lot less annoying and probably die super-fast.
Well color me surprised to find out that Caliga is not just supportive of blatant griefing behaviour but has been putting it into practice as well.
If you're going by what Nepht said in the post above, then your wrong. I was never an OV during the clarence event, Nepht just likes to troll me on the forums. Please don't assume things.
Hey, you're the one showing support of objectively griefing behaviour and calling it a "new dynamic of challenge" while dismissing legitimate concerns, especially those who were affected by it, as "overreacting". I just simply put two and two together.
If Nepht verifies that she was indeed trolling then I'll retract what I said about you putting it into practice.
Hey, you're the one showing support of objectively griefing behaviour and calling it a "new dynamic of challenge" while dismissing legitimate concerns, especially those who were affected by it, as "overreacting". I just simply put two and two together.
If Nepht verifies that she was indeed trolling then I'll retract what I said about you putting it into practice.
I still see nothing wrong with it. There are already implementations in the works that address your concerns regardless. I don't need to reveal my sources, and its not posted in the PTS notes. But to help put your concerns at ease, atleast one ( or a few ) of Clarence's aoe attacks will take away health %, and not a flat amount. This will help alleviate your OV problem, as they will be taking massive damage.
EDIT: They've posted the changes I've said on the PTS notes now.
Hey, you're the one showing support of objectively griefing behaviour and calling it a "new dynamic of challenge" while dismissing legitimate concerns, especially those who were affected by it, as "overreacting". I just simply put two and two together.
If Nepht verifies that she was indeed trolling then I'll retract what I said about you putting it into practice.
I still see nothing wrong with it. There are already implementations in the works that address your concerns regardless. I don't need to reveal my sources, and its not posted in the PTS notes. But to help put your concerns at ease, atleast one ( or a few ) of Clarence's aoe attacks will take away health %, and not a flat amount. This will help alleviate your OV problem, as they will be taking massive damage.
Trust me, I'm Caliga. Heh, it's times like these when I'm reminded why you're one of the few on my perma-ignore list.
Generally, if it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck... it's a duck.
Hey, you're the one showing support of objectively griefing behaviour and calling it a "new dynamic of challenge" while dismissing legitimate concerns, especially those who were affected by it, as "overreacting". I just simply put two and two together.
If Nepht verifies that she was indeed trolling then I'll retract what I said about you putting it into practice.
I still see nothing wrong with it. There are already implementations in the works that address your concerns regardless. I don't need to reveal my sources, and its not posted in the PTS notes. But to help put your concerns at ease, atleast one ( or a few ) of Clarence's aoe attacks will take away health %, and not a flat amount. This will help alleviate your OV problem, as they will be taking massive damage.
Trust me, I'm Caliga. Heh, it's times like these when I'm reminded why you're one of the few on my perma-ignore list.
Generally, if it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck... it's a duck.
Quack, quack.
I care only enough to reply to your statement. I just for the record want to put out that to some I'm demonized within the community, but it doesn't concern me in the least bit. The majority of this community knows my capability as a player. As a person, I may be arrogant, elitist, a jerk, etc etc. This doesn't change the fact that I'm considered a top tier player, and I do look at those that whine about the greifing to be below me because they refuse to adapt in a hostile environment.
If you can make a single build that can out damage me in tank role, no matter how broken, then get back to me. Until then, I refuse to be humble. My right to arrogance was earned, "casual."
The majority of this community knows my capability as a player. As a person, I may be arrogant, elitist, a jerk, etc etc. This doesn't change the fact that I'm considered a top tier player, and I do look at those that whine about the greifing to be below me because they refuse to adapt in a hostile environment.
If you can make a single build that can out damage me in tank role, no matter how broken, then get back to me. Until then, I refuse to be humble. My right to arrogance was earned, "casual."
I really don't care about how good someone is as a player, it's likely OV isn't affecting you any, what I'm concerned about is the community and if you can't see beyond your own experience then maybe you'll enjoy the game more when it's just you and a few other elite players left. As for Me I'm interested in making this a fun experience for everyone. I happen to think the game is a social experience and if most of the people at an event aren't having fun because of one or two other players spoiling the event for them then I see that as a problem.
Technically, griefing is what a GM interprets it to be. If a player is being disruptive by doing something that possibly wasn't an intended "feature". The rules on griefing and trolling and that sort of thing are not always black and white, and judgment calls need to be made. That call could land the offending players with a stern talking to, or a suspension, but let's be honest, we don't really have a GM to take any sort of action.
This is exactly my point. A few players in this thread may consider this behavior griefing, but that doesn't mean that it is. A GM should be professional enough to recognize that OV players are doing exactly as they should be and that no action is required.
They've had months to change how OV flagging behaves and haven't. They allowed us to play villains, and so we shall. Don't tell me "you can play a villain" but then add on "Oh but be polite".
I notice nobody is up in arms demanding GM action against players who are getting tagged and then suiciding into turrets... even though this would be a much greater exploitation of the system than what's being talked about in this thread. Oh, is it not bad when you're benefiting from the exploit? That's integrity for ya.
This is exactly my point. A few players in this thread may consider this behavior griefing, but that doesn't mean that it is. A GM should be professional enough to recognize that OV players are doing exactly as they should be and that no action is required.
An OV exploiting AoE aggro of a player who has no intention to participate in an Onslaught fight, something that has to have consent on that player's part, to force that player to engage the OV is doing exactly what they should be?
Um, no they aren't. The choice lies on the hero player to fight the OV, not the other way around. Taking advantage of a player's AoE not intended to engage the OV so that the OV can override that choice is pure exploitation of a design and mechanical flaw. This is as clear as day and I'm baffled as to how someone can call it "working as intended".
I notice nobody is up in arms demanding GM action against players who are getting tagged and then suiciding into turrets... even though this would be a much greater exploitation of the system than what's being talked about in this thread. Oh, is it not bad when you're benefiting from the exploit? That's integrity for ya.
Because it's not on topic and not relevant to the discussion at hand? Because it's not being discussed due to not being on topic, there's an integrity issue? Huh? Why automatically assume that anyone who's against this exploitation is guilty of turret exploitation and hence guilty of double-standards?
There already has been extensive discussions on turret exploits in the past by the way.
Well those PTS changes sure are interesting aren't they? They clearly support OVs involving themselves in the event, since no effort was made to prevent them getting tagged and defeating players. Now the challenge is simply how fast can you kill as many players as possible. I kind of like that
An OV exploiting AoE aggro of a player who has no intention to participate in an Onslaught fight, something that has to have consent on that player's part, to force that player to engage the OV is doing exactly what they should be?
Heck are you talking about jenny? The game doesn't ask you for consent when your aoe hits an OV, it just flags you immediately. Where did you ever get the idea that consent was required?
Because it's not on topic and not relevant to the discussion at hand? Because it's not being discussed due to not being on topic, there's an integrity issue? Huh? Why automatically assume that anyone who's against this exploitation is guilty of turret exploitation and hence guilty of double-standards?
Heck are you talking about jenny? The game doesn't ask you for consent when your aoe hits an OV, it just flags you immediately. Where did you ever get the idea that consent was required?
Players who want to fight OVs tag the OVs, be it single attacks or AoEs, there's the consent.
Players who want to fight Clarence obviously want to focus on Clarence, not OVs jumping in the middle of a Clarence fight to take advantage of AoE aggro tag.
I notice nobody is up in arms demanding GM action against players who are getting tagged and then suiciding into turrets... even though this would be a much greater exploitation of the system than what's being talked about in this thread. Oh, is it not bad when you're benefiting from the exploit? That's integrity for ya.
While I think that behavior is cheesy, you have to admit that someone doing that isn't ruining anyone else's fun. Someone trying to enjoy the limited-time event but being forced into getting squashed by a villain player is getting their game experience ruined.
Meanwhile, nobody is enjoying the game less because some guy is throwing himself at turrets.
No, this doesn't mean they support OV trolling the event. Stop putting words into the devs mouths.
The changes, not the devs. The changes can't speak, they're just alterations to code you silly goose
Ladygadfly's reply to a comment made about OVs not being able to block Clarence's newly-buffed Mecha Blast over in the PTS thread indicates that the change was made to get OVs to stay way from Clarence.
No, this doesn't mean they support OV trolling the event. Stop putting words into the devs mouths.
The changes, not the devs. The changes can't speak, they're just alterations to code you silly goose
Ladygadfly's reply to a comment made about OVs not being able to block Clarence's newly-buffed Mecha Blast over in the PTS thread indicates that the change was made to get OVs to stay way from Clarence.
^
Buffing everything to stupid high levels and nerfing everything to piss poor levels yields the same results, but not the same community reactions.
Comments
You might think GM action is unjust, but really, just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should. People doing this know they're griefing players. They're also making the event not fun for players. One guy can ruin the event for 20 people at a time. Knowingly harassing players in a manner like this is already "unjust" so any punishment that comes should be expected. I doubt Cryptic is fine with just letting a few dudes ruin an event like this, and I'm willing to bet that something will be done about it, whether during this event or one in the future (system changes, not GM action).
I do agree that they shouldn't just start handing out bans all willy-nilly, but the griefers should be reprimanded for it, but again, we'd need a GM online to do so, so nope.
Saying that "the devs are obviously not against it because they haven't built a deterrent to do it" is rationalization, not proof of them thinking this is how events should go.
http://www.arcgames.com/en/about/terms
15.2 Without limiting the foregoing, in addition to the User Content rules set forth in Section 16, you agree not to take any of the following actions:
l. using or exploiting any bugs, errors, or design flaws to obtain unauthorized access to the Service or to gain an unfair advantage over other players;
Being able to disrupt a Clarence fight with an OV = Design flaw.
Exploiting Clarence's damage against a player along with their own AoE aggro, with OV's damage output added on = Gaining an unfair advantage from said exploitation.
What's more to be said? If someone gets GM-slapped for this, boo hoo, cry me a river.
It is obviously the intent of the Onslaught System that no one should feel obligated to participate, and no one should be forced to. If that wasn't the case, then an Onslaught Villain would be able to hurt anyone, not just anyone who hurt him first. There was a system put in place to prevent that, but they didn't see it coming for this event.
Saying it's intended behavior is pure rationalization, nothing more.
If you target them directly with an ability (Aoe or single target) then you become flagged. (the same goes for healing/buffing/shielding/ect someone who is flagged) This should also work with passives and the aoe components attached to them.
Onslaught –Toggle on to take part
WHY?
Because of the ones interfering in others play, trying to force people to attack them by getting in the way of likely AOE attacks.
A Current popular place to fight is behind Defender’s station(convenient for suicide on turrets when timer running out), which is the teleport in place for Ren Center. So anyone with a damage/buff aura up when they teleport in, is going to get tagged.
Suggestion:
Add a toggle to take part in OV attacks.
OV’s to be considered Neutral/non attackable unless you are taking part by toggling ON. So you cannot target them, AT ALL.
OV’s to NOT be able to attack OPEN world bosses. That’s not what they are for.
Harass the Dev’s to make Becomes of them, if you want them for normal play.(and I use the word Normal very loosely. A picture of a herd of Mini Gronds, springs to mind.)
1. Wax on, wax off… sorry toggle on toggle off. When you toggle on, your normal taking part timer starts. You CANNOT turn off your toggle while the timer is running. You started it, you finish it.
2. Hit and run heroes – OV can’t change zones. Nor should ‘heroes’ be able to. So no changing zones, entering instances or Alerts while you are toggled as taking part . Run away, where they can chase you, they need tokens too. This will sort out another problem.
3. But I’m not taking part- People in Alerts being tagged as taking part , due to healing someone still with a timer running.
4. It wasn’t me, it was my pets- when not toggled as taking part, your pets, whether from devices or powers, view the OV as neutral/non attackable. So they won’t ‘accidently’ help.
5. What me? I didn’t heal him. If someone is toggled on as a ‘hero’, you cannot target them for anything unless you are also toggled. They are unaffected by any teammate/close people’s auras/spec trees.
6. OK, who is taking part? – The OV have a big sign above their head, the ‘heroes’ attacking should also have a sign, so the OV knows who is a spectator and who is just trying to hide. A Target symbol would do.
Any other problems on both sides, I missed and yes Number 6 is a problem. I've watched too many try to hide in crowds or pretend they are spectators.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Now, completely aside from the fact that some ATs and a few FFs are built almost entirely around AoEs (Impulse, I'm looking at you), there's the simple fact that unless the AoEs come out when Clarence unleashes his attack-toy minions, all you've done is trade the instant-death from the griefing OVs for the "death of a thousand cuts" coming from the toys. For the sake of the griefers' own bizarre entertainment, they're forcing the rest of the playerbase to choose how they want to die, or choose not to try to stop Clarence at all.
(And yes, this is griefing. There is precisely one Clarence-spawn area that's in the same place as an Onslaught target; there was, for instance, no good reason whatsoever for a Medusa to be running around in the Clarence fight near the Prison, as the Onslaught target was several blocks away. The only conceivable reason for this to be done was so that the Medusa player could get lots of cheap kills by combining their own damage with that of Clarence, knowing that few if any of the players in the area would be fighting the OV at all.)
- David Brin, "Those Eyes"
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
How erudite. Are you sure you're on the right boards?
I think the fact that players that want to play a villain in the form of an OV, and being able to foil the heroes at every turn, is what makes a true villian.
It's my opinion, but I think this shouldn't be changed.
EDIT: We've been spoiled by having a choice of whether or not to bring the fight, in terms of instances pvp mini games and dueling. Now that almost "true" pvp has come to Champions, many of you decide to try their hand and once again adjust the hand of creation in their favor. The OVs crashing down on clarence fights brings a new dynamic to the challenge scale in this game. This community has an ugly history of making suggestions that they later regret. This may sound mean and elitist, but don't ruin this for the some of us that yearn for a challenge.
Caliga's PRIMUS Database! --XXX--The Caliga Build: Threatening Haymakers! --XXX-- Caliga and Conquer fanart!
Try and look at things from the point of view of the average player instead of the point of view of a monster build.
but that aside, something needs to be done about this... you know, a PvE method of earning tokens on both sides that is only a little less lucrative than stomping all over players rather than not being worth the effort.
Member of Paragon Dawn: Because some people like friendly helpful communities.
Yeah some things are broken... no I don't use/abuse them.. where would be the fun in that?
The kind of politics and drama you're talking about are exclusive to open world PVP MMOs. Those MMO players choose to play open world pvp so they open themselves up to whatever is expected from free range PVP. That doesn't apply here.
Well, another OV standing guard at the reward circle at the end of a Clarence fight. There is no way that this is not exploiting a bad design flaw just for the sake of griefing players or as some like to rationalize "playing the villain".
Come on Cryptic, fix this. Even if, you like the idea of roaming OVs in the game, this is neither fair nor fun.
ETA:
Well, I got a tell from the griefer thanking me for the pic in game a few minutes ago *shrugs...humans*
Edit: Well, there you go.
Make it so that OVs are unaffected by anything that has AoE properties(Attacks, Passives, Advantages, etc) by any PC that -isn't- tagged for OPvP(Onslaught PvP). This would make it so that the only way to initiate OPvP is for the player to directly target an OV and attack them. this would include attacks that require direct-targeting but also have AoE properties(Ex. Avalanche). Seeing as how Heroes are the ones that have to initiate the first attack on OVs anyway, this would give players more direct control on when they want to OPvP, and at the same time allow OVs to remain involved in events such as Clarence while protecting players from accidentally tagging OVs when they're focusing on other mobs. It's also a way to protect lower-level/newer players from accidentally becoming a target from OVs roaming about while they're questing through Westside, etc. This could also make it easier for admins to pinpoint cases of legitimate grieving over instances such as Clarence and other world events. Keep things fun, but fair, I say.
Things like putting out extra turrets onto the map or 'Anti OV zones' just to discourage people from using OVs just sounds like a bad idea to me in the long run. Putting more and more restrictions on players that want to do Supervillain Onslaught content is just going to drive more people away from it sooner or later. I can see both sides of the argument, but having situations where people are -forced- into PvP in a game that wasn't designed as Open-world PvP is getting into ugly territory. I feel that this would be the best overall solution, as it allows those who like the challenge situations like these can bring to make the choice to do so for themselves as well. Thoughts?
If damage and healing auras can flag you that should have been in at ground zero. The internet is old enough so that every game dev knows if something can be used to grief it will be for as much as it can, whether that was intended game play or not.
I figured this would happen with events so I've just been sitting them out since OVs came out.
The bottom line that the apologists here and in game are doing their best to ignore, downplay, or deflect is that there wouldn't be a problem at all if some of the OVers would just stop being overly large male appendages and not bring the OVs to the Clarence fights. I don't think anyone has a problem with PVP in general or the OVs in particular. No one is really calling for a total ban on OVs in the Zone. It's just that the system is being abused in this instance and there is a call from the player base to find a way to curb it. If the OVs can't or wont police themselves and show some respect to the players who don't want to PVP then it falls to the Devs to implement code changes that can stop or prevent the abuse.
The sad part is that by continuing to defend or rationalize the abuse the apologists and offenders are only not only further tarnishing the reputation of OVs in general (including the players who aren't abusing the system) but providing all the more reason why any kind of open world PVP in CO is bad idea. Doesn't exactly inspire much trust or confidence in one's ability to properly drive a car when they can't even handle a go-kart responsibly.
As for me being on the right board, we'll see. Considering that in last Cryptic game I was involved with there seemed to be a rather unhealthy relationship between the Devs and the resident griefers I'm very interested to see how this pans out. So far CO seems to be better on dealing with and de-incentivizing griefing and this is the first real instance of it I've seen to date. Hopefully this just ended up being an oversight that will be corrected soon.
Letting people be jerks in the game is going to encourage more people to be jerks.
Epic Stronghold
Block timing explained
Uhm...that's my point. People should not be flagged for PVP unless they want to be. Currently that isn't the situation.
Oh, and Caliga - not all of us are running around with nothing but 40s. Rudolph the Red-Nosed Pain Deer is a Christmas-only toon, so he's around 18 now. Spearmint, my new cold-based toon (so I can try out the new icicle power in-game, once he gets up that high) is 14. Hell, my only 40s are toons that are semi-retired, because I have lots of alts. If you believe both OV and Clarence should be 40-only fights, should they not then be instanced, so as not to be inconvenienced by lesser, non-godlike characters getting in their way? Or is it your contention that open-world content should be pitched exclusively to those at level cap, and new players need not apply?
- David Brin, "Those Eyes"
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Nepht and Dr Deflecto on primus
They all thought I was out of the game....But I'm holding all the lockboxes now..
I'll......FOAM FINGER YOUR BACK!
Actually, that's an alternative: if I could hunt down OVs for event tokens, they'd be a lot less annoying and probably die super-fast.
Epic Stronghold
Block timing explained
Caliga's PRIMUS Database! --XXX--The Caliga Build: Threatening Haymakers! --XXX-- Caliga and Conquer fanart!
If Nepht verifies that she was indeed trolling then I'll retract what I said about you putting it into practice.
EDIT: They've posted the changes I've said on the PTS notes now.
Caliga's PRIMUS Database! --XXX--The Caliga Build: Threatening Haymakers! --XXX-- Caliga and Conquer fanart!
Trust me, I'm Caliga. Heh, it's times like these when I'm reminded why you're one of the few on my perma-ignore list.
Generally, if it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck... it's a duck.
Quack, quack.
People are broken. - Lum the Mad
If you can make a single build that can out damage me in tank role, no matter how broken, then get back to me. Until then, I refuse to be humble. My right to arrogance was earned, "casual."
Caliga's PRIMUS Database! --XXX--The Caliga Build: Threatening Haymakers! --XXX-- Caliga and Conquer fanart!
"I'm a proud arrogant elitist jerk who looks down on people who can't get on my level."
So charming. Such ego. Remind me again why this guy is such an adored forum celebrity?
They've had months to change how OV flagging behaves and haven't. They allowed us to play villains, and so we shall. Don't tell me "you can play a villain" but then add on "Oh but be polite".
I notice nobody is up in arms demanding GM action against players who are getting tagged and then suiciding into turrets... even though this would be a much greater exploitation of the system than what's being talked about in this thread. Oh, is it not bad when you're benefiting from the exploit? That's integrity for ya.
My super cool CC build and how to use it.
Note, however, that Clarence will suddenly be killing people...
Epic Stronghold
Block timing explained
Um, no they aren't. The choice lies on the hero player to fight the OV, not the other way around. Taking advantage of a player's AoE not intended to engage the OV so that the OV can override that choice is pure exploitation of a design and mechanical flaw. This is as clear as day and I'm baffled as to how someone can call it "working as intended". Because it's not on topic and not relevant to the discussion at hand? Because it's not being discussed due to not being on topic, there's an integrity issue? Huh? Why automatically assume that anyone who's against this exploitation is guilty of turret exploitation and hence guilty of double-standards?
There already has been extensive discussions on turret exploits in the past by the way.
My super cool CC build and how to use it.
My super cool CC build and how to use it.
Jenny pls, I didn't say "in this thread".
My super cool CC build and how to use it.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
My super cool CC build and how to use it.
Players who want to fight Clarence obviously want to focus on Clarence, not OVs jumping in the middle of a Clarence fight to take advantage of AoE aggro tag.
What is so hard to understand?
Meanwhile, nobody is enjoying the game less because some guy is throwing himself at turrets.
42 40s, LTSer.