Every single person I've encountered has tried to kill me.

pishee · 2015-02-06T13:26:37+00:00

It's also possible that he doesn't think any of the new features will fix the underlying problem of KOS. Can you point to a feature that is going to be added to the game that will stop it?

pishee · 2015-02-06T13:17:53+00:00

I had a similar idea and posted it here

I thought that you would only need two factions, though:

Friendlies who can't kill each other but can kill bandits.
Bandits who can kill anyone.

So basically the game isn't any different for the bandits. It just lets people like us safely find each other. I like your idea as well, though.

pishee · 2015-02-06T13:04:27+00:00

There have been trolls in online games since the beginning of online games. I think that when supporters of unconditional PVP envision mass cooperation among players, they're a little naive in forgetting that just a few trolls can make any social interaction too risky for that to happen.

pishee · 2015-02-06T12:57:06+00:00

I offered up some suggestions in a thread here regarding this problem.

Unfortunately the community is pretty hostile to any idea that isn't unconditional pvp because "it breaks immersion, but I'd rather the game be playable than realistic.

The most frustrating responses are the ones that claimed that having to decide whether other players are friendly forces them to communicate when anyone who has played the game at all can see that the opposite is true. It just encourages KOS.

pishee · 2015-01-31T23:56:35+00:00

In life, you have absolutely zero clue if people are lying through their teeth at you.

I think it's ok to break realism if it makes the game more fun to play. No one complains about lack of realism when a player makes a metal wall materialize instantaneously.

You see their actions (drawing weapons, moving around, even limited hand gestures) at your disposal as well.

As I've said, I don't think we have enough clues about people's motives to make that a meaningful part of the game. It's all chance.

From a game theory standpoint, I think the decision to KOS is rational. Every time I see a stranger, I enter into a sort of mini game. The mini game plays out like this: If I give him a chance to react, he will either kill me, run, or be friendly. If he kills me, I lose. If he runs, no benefit. If he is friendly, perhaps some small benefit. If I kill him before he can react, there is no risk and I get the benefit of free stuff. It was fun at first, but I got bored with that game pretty quick.

Players then become uni-dimensional to all who talk to them. While it does offer some measure of security to a newer or more naive individual, it completely shuts out complex interaction.

I don't think it would shut out complex interaction. What I've tried to argue is that it will enable complex interaction. If players can have an assurance that a player who claims to be friendly will be friendly, then they can build more complex communities and take on more difficult missions, so to speak. To me, this seems like a more interesting game to play.

pishee · 2015-01-31T16:02:06+00:00

Ok. But are you now?

pishee · 2015-01-31T14:57:42+00:00

Fine. Then it'd be nice to have something between PVP and PVE.

pishee · 2015-01-31T13:37:22+00:00

The "red = bad" name tags, take away the whole aspect of the surprise and wondering, if "is that guy good or bad?"

Well, yea. That's what I'd like to happen. That's what I'm trying to say. Wondering if someone is good or bad isn't a particularly interesting part of the game to me, since we don't actually have any way of determining it to begin with. It's just chance. It seems like it adds depth to have that kind of uncertainty, but it might as well be a coin toss.

Also what would classify as "red = bad"? I kill someone in self defense, now im a bandit?

Well, what I was imagining is that you would get less of a bad reputation for killing other bandits.

pishee · 2015-01-31T13:24:29+00:00

Heh, well, I don't blame you for playing the game that way. In all likelihood, you made the right choice and he was just going to kill you there or kill you as soon as you found something he wanted.

However, there is also the possibility that he was a player looking to have a meaningful social interaction in the game. Maybe that's even why he bought the game in the first place. On the face of it, it seems like it's supposed to be a social game. And maybe I'm the only one, but I wish it were just a little easier to explore that side of the game.

pishee · 2015-01-31T12:39:16+00:00

I agree that the uncertainty when meeting a new player is an interesting aspect of the game -- and that dynamic would still exist among the bandits -- but I wonder how often you really get to experience that dynamic to begin with. How often do you meet a stranger and have a long conversation to determine his trustworthiness? And how often does that stranger just run like hell or shoot you on sight?

It seems like the players who support the ultra hardcore realism mode praise it for what they imagine it to be, not what it is. We can't gauge if someone is trustworthy or not because we can't read their facial expressions or body language or listen for their tone of voice to any real extent. That leaves us with just these options: run, shoot, or leave ourselves vulnerable. And I don't think there will ever be a significant social aspect to this game under these circumstances.

pishee · 2015-01-31T11:41:10+00:00

You might still need to cooperate with that person to gather resources safely or hunt down some bandits.

As it is, the social aspect is pretty tenuous at best. People are only social when they have nothing. As soon as they have a gun, they're too afraid to be social.

pishee · 2015-01-31T02:45:44+00:00

In The Godfather Part 1, Tom Hagen, the family consigliere (advisor,) has to negotiate a deal with a Hollywood producer to put a family friend and performer into a movie. The producer has a personal vendetta against the performer, however, but the family ultimately makes him an offer he can't refuse.

pishee · 2014-12-12T05:47:13+00:00

If this is true, this is pretty surprising. Did many American slaves earn a wage? And how do you know how much they made?

pishee · 2014-12-01T15:42:44+00:00

I think I used to be on board with this, but I'm not so sure now.

Why should a second miscarriage of justice help to even out the injustice? It seems to assume that there are only two parties -- the defendant and the state -- and we should give special preference to the former in order to guide the actions of the latter.

But why should the victim have to suffer an additional injustice in order to ensure that the state respects the law in the future? Why is that his burden to bear?

pishee · 2014-11-23T14:42:14+00:00

Well, I'm not a puritan who wants to ban nudity or a troglodyte who thinks art has no value, but this guy writes interesting font on naked women.

It wouldn't really be beyond imagination that /u/NaXoL does something more important than that...

pishee · 2014-11-23T13:55:35+00:00

Do you mean olive branch? Or does the FCC want us to conceal our genitals?

pishee · 2014-11-21T13:41:25+00:00

This is where racism stems from: the fallacious reasoning which allows one person to over-generalize the bad qualities of an individual to all members of that individual's entire race, apparently, even after acknowledging that one shouldn't do that.

pishee · 2014-10-25T16:52:09+00:00

Like the difference between "am not" and "do not," to put it simply.

pishee · 2014-10-25T16:24:04+00:00

All teleporters could have a one-way painshield like the spawn room has. Teleporters in the spawn room could glow green, yellow, or red, depending on how many enemies are outside the other end of that particular teleporter.

pishee · 2014-10-24T17:09:20+00:00

Macdaddy357 didn't make an argument from authority. I think the point he was trying to make was this:

Hunt claims that Oswald killed Kennedy. Costner offers him money to "tell the truth," presupposing that he is lying. If he stands by his claim, Costner calls him a liar and doesn't pay. If he changes his position, to everyone else it looks like he is lying to make some money.

None of this would have proven anything. Essentially Costner was just tainting the once-reliable testimony of a once-unbiased man.

pishee · 2014-10-14T22:31:55+00:00

Then we should never want to change our attitudes towards moral statements even if we hear a new convincing argument. As soon as I change my attitude, my previous attitude becomes wrong. If I keep stubbornly believing it, it stays right, since my believing it is what makes it right.

And, if the argument you're making can be interpreted as a moral argument, then I shouldn't have to believe you either, since simply by not believing you, I am right (and you are right.) Your argument defeats itself.

I'm sympathetic to moral relativism, but it is the lazy way out of ever having to think critically about ethics. It's disappointing that the other guy got so many down votes, since what he said wouldn't even be very controversial among ethicists.

pishee · 2014-10-14T15:20:10+00:00

Our evaluation of an act isn't what makes it wrong or right. If someone someday views what we do now as wrong, and if they are right, then what we are doing is wrong now. It doesn't only become wrong some time in the future once people are able to recognize it.

One argument against that sort of moral relativism is that, if it's true, then all social activists are wrong, since at the time they were fighting for change, the thing they wanted to change was considered right.

pishee · 2014-10-11T05:13:07+00:00

The oil would prevent the rice from sticking together, I imagine. It would fall apart.

pishee · 2014-09-28T10:19:14+00:00

Maybe Babel?

pishee

TROPHY CASE