Insiders!

[Blackmagic9000]

Hello you back stabbing scrub lords that stole my best friend dodo lola and mana named kitty

 

Today i want to see what everyones options on insiders, your funny stories with em or what not

 

For me no matter what, a inside is never wroth it...i don't see how this can be seen as loyalty to some tribes but thats my opinion 

 

Let me know what yall think and keep being awesome scrub lords!

[GP]

Insiders in PvP completely acceptable tactic in war.

Insiders in PvE completely unacceptable.

Insiders are seen as loyalty to the tribe that planted them there, obviously not seen as loyalty to the tribe that they were planted in.

[Blackmagic9000]

Imagine being a insider but it's pve.....

[invision]

i got kicked from a tribe because they got extremely huffy and sour i was making tek items for my own personal base on another map rather than the shared base we had. all the items were farmed and made with my own items and animals btw. they kept all my belongings and all the rare animals i had. (phoenix, basilisk ect.) the worst part was i played with these people for almost a year and had no reason to distrust them. 

[Charyzard]

We had someone pose as a new player and ask to join our tribe, our server (PVE) is very welcoming and we have our own community and we are all more than happy to help new players out. Our tribe leader added them.

 

This player proceeded to C4 holes into every tribe member's base while we were offline, steal dinos and whatever items they could get, then leave the tribe and rejoin their own tribe which STAYED ON THE SERVER and tried to do it to other tribes, as if they think we don't talk to each other. The other tribes helped us out by giving us dinos to help replace what we lost, but on PVE this behavior should be punishable as there is no reason for it other than to scam people. In PVP its an actual tactic, but on PVE there is no reason for it.

[Pipinghot]

23 hours ago, Charyzard said:

In PVP its an actual tactic, but on PVE there is no reason for it.

Unfortunately WildCard has refused to learn what (the vast majority of) players want from a PvE environment. They conceived of this game as PvP and  steadfastly refuse to learn what PvE really means to everyone but themselves and a few cowardly griefers who are enabled by WC's refusal to enforce true PvE. Your only real option is to be more careful about who you invite into tribes & alliances, WC will never fix their own attitude.

[invincibleqc]

10 minutes ago, Pipinghot said:

Unfortunately WildCard has refused to learn what (the vast majority of) players want from a PvE environment. They conceived of this game as PvP and  steadfastly refuse to learn what PvE really means to everyone but themselves

To be honest, the game has been centred on PvE mechanics since at least Extinction (OSDs, missions, etc.).

27 minutes ago, Pipinghot said:

a few cowardly griefers who are enabled by WC's refusal to enforce true PvE.

I think that's a bit unfair, considering they have taken actions in the past against such griefing (e.g. by removing Tribe Wars that were used to drag and raid unsuspected alliances, etc). I'm sure they would address bypassing tribe ranking permissions with explosives if it became a recurrent issue. Hence why I've always encouraged players to submit support tickets reporting such incident so that at least they are documented.

[Austria]

The c4 Problem is that most of pve player dont know what happen with there Base. Because when anyone use c4 Trib log say only "your wall was destroyed" and not by player or c4...

[GrumpyBear]

23 hours ago, invincibleqc said:

To be honest, the game has been centred on PvE mechanics since at least Extinction (OSDs, missions, etc.).

I think that's a bit unfair, considering they have taken actions in the past against such griefing (e.g. by removing Tribe Wars that were used to drag and raid unsuspected alliances, etc). I'm sure they would address bypassing tribe ranking permissions with explosives if it became a recurrent issue. Hence why I've always encouraged players to submit support tickets reporting such incident so that at least they are documented.

I would say that this is pretty likely the reason the c4 issue hasn't been addressed.  I know it happened to us, and that's how the person went about breaking everything.  They hid behind the fact no log would show they did it.   We assumed it was our fault for letting them in and didn't bother with reporting.  Nothing we lost could be replaced by WC anyways.  

 

 

[Pipinghot]

On 4/17/2022 at 5:46 PM, invincibleqc said:

To be honest, the game has been centred on PvE mechanics since at least Extinction (OSDs, missions, etc.).

I think that's a bit unfair, considering they have taken actions in the past against such griefing (e.g. by removing Tribe Wars that were used to drag and raid unsuspected alliances, etc). I'm sure they would address bypassing tribe ranking permissions with explosives if it became a recurrent issue. Hence why I've always encouraged players to submit support tickets reporting such incident so that at least they are documented.

 

  

On 4/17/2022 at 5:46 PM, invincibleqc said:

To be honest, the game has been centred on PvE mechanics since at least Extinction (OSDs, missions, etc.).

You're talking about methods of acquiring resources, not how players interact with each other. If we use that argument the game has always been centered on PvE mechanics since the great majority of all resources on every map are gathered using PvE methods. OSD's aren't any more PvE oriented than supply crates, the only real difference is they mostly require more people and they take longer.

Insiding a tribe that collects resources from OSD's is no different from insiding a tribe that gathers resources with picks & axes on the island. The method of gathering resources has nothing to do with insiding.

On 4/17/2022 at 5:46 PM, invincibleqc said:

I think that's a bit unfair, considering they have taken actions in the past against such griefing (e.g. by removing Tribe Wars that were used to drag and raid unsuspected alliances, etc).

They've taken actions against the biggest, most obvious, most egregious griefing, but have still failed to learn that insiding is fundamentally a PvP activity.

On 4/17/2022 at 5:46 PM, invincibleqc said:

I'm sure they would address bypassing tribe ranking permissions with explosives if it became a recurrent issue. Hence why I've always encouraged players to submit support tickets reporting such incident so that at least they are documented.

It has always been an issue, since the very beginning of the game. While it's laudable to encourage people to submit tickets, they shouldn't be needed in the first place. Anyone who understands that the vast majority of people consider insiding to be a violation of the fundamental concept of PvE wouldn't need tickets to be submitted nor to have it explained to them by players over and over again for years.

This is a general truism - if someone understands something is wrong you don't need to explain it to them or submit tickets to teach them that it's wrong. The issue here is WC's failure (or refusal) to learn. The vast majority of people who play PvE want to be immune to griefing from other players, or at least as close to immune as a game can be. No game is ever perfectly immune to griefing, but a fundamental precept of PvE is to make them as immune as possible.

Regarding your point about "recurring", It is and always has been a recurring issue. The issue is under-reported because most of the player base has learned that WC refuses to understand why this is a problem, that it violates the nature of what PvE should be, refused to do anything about it, and so the players don't waste their time submitting tickets for something they know will fall on deaf ears.

And again, it shouldn't need to be reported in the first place, anyone who understands what most people want from their PvE gaming experience would know that the game should have stronger protections against insiding. It should be explicitly against the ToC and the CoC (in PvE), and there should be stronger safegaurds in place to prevent it from happening (in PvE).

[invincibleqc]

1 hour ago, Pipinghot said:

You're talking about methods of acquiring resources, not how players interact with each other. If we use that argument the game has always been centered on PvE mechanics since the great majority of all resources on every map are gathered using PvE methods. OSD's aren't any more PvE oriented than supply crates, the only real difference is they mostly require more people and they take longer.

Insiding a tribe that collects resources from OSD's is no different from insiding a tribe that gathers resources with picks & axes on the island. The method of gathering resources has nothing to do with insiding.

I was referring about key features of the latest DLCs being more oriented toward "vE" than "vP" showing that the direction of the game has shifted for quite a while now and that it is equally, if not more, a PvE game than it is a PvP one.

1 hour ago, Pipinghot said:

Regarding your point about "recurring", It is and always has been a recurring issue. The issue is under-reported because most of the player base has learned that WC refuses to understand why this is a problem, that it violates the nature of what PvE should be, refused to do anything about it, and so the players don't waste their time submitting tickets for something they know will fall on deaf ears.

The fact they don't reimburse stolen goods, or take punitive actions towards insiders, does not mean it fall on deaf ears. Which is pretty much the point I was making above; the more these incidents occur and are being reported through the appropriate channels, the more chance they are being addressed. Granted this is not really accurate data but, based on the amount of threads reporting or discussing incidents where tribe permissions were bypassed with explosives, this is not really common. At least, nothing compared to tribe wars that had mega-threads about it, which resulted into changes because it was a recurrent issue.

1 hour ago, Pipinghot said:

And again, it shouldn't need to be reported in the first place, anyone who understands what most people want from their PvE gaming experience would know that the game should have stronger protections against insiding. It should be explicitly against the ToC and the CoC (in PvE), and there should be stronger safegaurds in place to prevent it from happening (in PvE).

I don't really think this should be something explicitly against the rules. I mean, how do you enforce personal disputes between players? This sounds unrealistic. I'm not saying that game mechanics that can be exploited to facilitate such incidents should not be addressed, but at the end of the day, as you previously said;

On 4/17/2022 at 5:11 PM, Pipinghot said:

be more careful about who you invite into tribes

If you don't know someone, don't invite them into your home.

Anyways, all I was saying is that blaming WC for players behaviours makes no sense to me whatsoever.

[Pipinghot]

7 hours ago, invincibleqc said:

I was referring about key features of the latest DLCs being more oriented toward "vE" than "vP" showing that the direction of the game has shifted for quite a while now and that it is equally, if not more, a PvE game than it is a PvP one.

I understood you the first time, and we'll have to agree to disagree, I dispute your interpretation of that being "more PvE".

What you are describing as "more oriented toward 'vE' than 'vP'" are really just different methods for accomplishing the same goal, gathering resources (most importantly blueprints & equipment). There is nothing "more PvE" about OSD's on Extinction than Beacons on The Island, they are equally PvE. The same can be said of missions. Using a mission to gather those resources doesn't make the gathering process any more PvE or less PvE than the other methods.

7 hours ago, invincibleqc said:

The fact they don't reimburse stolen goods, or take punitive actions towards insiders, does not mean it fall on deaf ears. Which is pretty much the point I was making above; the more these incidents occur and are being reported through the appropriate channels, the more chance they are being addressed.

And again, I understood you the first time and, based on WC's history of inaction, this particular issue does indeed fall on deaf ears.

I'm (generally) also an advocate of submitting tickets, they are an important tool for players to make game makers aware of the flaws, errors, bugs and weaknesses in their game. Like you, I tell people on a regular basis to submit tickets, both on the forums and in-game when talking to people i know. However, the general does not always apply to the specific.

In this specific case the problem is WC's attitude about what PvE should be. I maintain that the real issue is WC's attitude about how PvE should work vs. what the large majority of their players think about PvE should work, there is a conflict between the two different view on what PvE is supposed to be. What the large majority of players want is for PvE to involve zero griefing (or to be realistic, as little griefing as it's humany possible for WC to make the game. As noted previously, no game can be made 100% grief-proof.) But WC's view is could be better described as "much less griefing that PvP, but still open to griefing unless enough people complain about it." There is an obvious gap between WC's view of how PvE should work and the player base's view of how PvE should work, and WC has either failed or refused to learn that lesson over the years. They pretty much only make changes reactively that are needed to minimize the amount of complaining that they have to hear about it, rather taking a proactive approach. The core value of their players is that PvE should have no griefing, but the core value of WC is that PvE should have less griefing than PvE but some forms of griefing are still ok as long as they don't cause a large impact.

7 hours ago, invincibleqc said:

Granted this is not really accurate data but, based on the amount of threads reporting or discussing incidents where tribe permissions were bypassed with explosives, this is not really common. At least, nothing compared to tribe wars that had mega-threads about it, which resulted into changes because it was a recurrent issue.

1) Being less common doesn't make it uncommon.

2) Debating the frequency is to already miss the point.

The point is that there is a disconnect between WC's idea of what PvE should be and their players' idea of what PvE should be, and the consequence of that disconnect is that WC has never understood that this issue is more important to their players than to themselves.

It is an issue that WC should proactively take steps to prevent because it's a violation of how a PvE game should be set up in the first place. The only people who think that insiding is ok are WC and the griefers, by failing to take action against an issue that has existed since the very beginning of the game WC has proven that there is as disconnect between their idea of PvE and the players' idea of PvE, and WC has failed or refused to learn that the large majority of their player base thinks that WC's idea of PvE is wrong.

The issue is not the frequency of using C4, but WC's attitude about insiding in all forms. If WC understood that their players view that insiding in any form is a violation of what PvE should be then WC would be more proactive about preventing insiding rather than reacting to it. The fact that they haven't been more proactive about fixing any form of insiding is evidence that they fundamentally fail to understand that their players think of PvE differently than they do.

7 hours ago, invincibleqc said:

If you don't know someone, don't invite them into your home.

If you want to build a PvE game based on tribes, be proactive about preventing insiding in any form.

7 hours ago, invincibleqc said:

Anyways, all I was saying is that blaming WC for players behaviours makes no sense to me whatsoever.

No one is blaming WC for their players, they are blaming WC for failing to be proactive at providing a good PvE environment. WC's approach to PvE is consistently reactive, they continue to fail to be proactive because they continue to fail to learn what PvE means to the large majority of their players.

Every game company has to take actions based on the behaviors of (some) players, because every game has (some) jerks and griefers. It's easy to see whether a company "gets it" or not based on whether they are proactive or reactive about griefing. WC has proven that they don't get it because they have always been reactive, or even inactive, where insiding is concerned.

[invincibleqc]

2 hours ago, Pipinghot said:

The issue is not the frequency of using C4, but WC's attitude about insiding in all forms. If WC understood that their players view that insiding in any form is a violation of what PvE should be then WC would be more proactive about preventing insiding rather than reacting to it. The fact that they haven't been more proactive about fixing any form of insiding is evidence that they fundamentally fail to understand that their players think of PvE differently than they do.

Well, that is the sole and only issue that is their responsibility; the tools players currently have to secure their stuff can be bypassed. Other forms are personal disputes between players and enforcing them is simply unrealistic. The fact permissions can be bypassed aside, anything players can legitimately access within their tribe should be none of their concerns. I mean, they own everything belonging to the tribe they are apart of and can use anything they want as they see fit even if other members are not okay with it. Whether Bob claims Jane used his metal, that John took his dinos, or anything of that nature, are personal disputes that should be resolved between players. For the same reason you don't call the cops because someone living with you ate your slice of cake that you left in your shared fridge, do you?

So yeah, bypassing permissions through explosives to loot structures and weapons to loot dinos are the only issues here in my opinion. Everything else is the responsibility of players to secure their stuff and make sure they trust players they tribe up with.

In conclusion, as you said;

3 hours ago, Pipinghot said:

we'll have to agree to disagree

 

[DirkInSA]

1 hour ago, invincibleqc said:

The fact permissions can be bypassed aside, anything players can legitimately access within their tribe should be none of their concerns. I mean, they own everything belonging to the tribe they are apart of and can use anything they want as they see fit even if other members are not okay with it.

Mmmm, I must also disagree with this comment. There are well different ways to manage tribe membership and (here I admit I'm on shaky ground) I imagine it is possible to allow none / some / all access to tribe kit depending on those settings. What I dunno, since I have never been part of a serious online PVE tribe, is if those settings can be granted to individuals at the discretion of the tribe manager(s). Were it to be possible then there would be a good progression of trust tier that is under the control of the guys running the tribe.

So for example buildings that are "tribe owned / tribe manager destroy" should include preventing  any damage from C4 placed by an arbitrary tribe member on a structure, or making this C4 have zero impact.

On a different note,  dinos that are {tribe owned / tribe use} or {tamed by owned / tribe use} is well and good (and again I am really not familiar with PVE mechanics), but I don't get how that allows a guy to pinch a tribes dinos? At best the dude could move it into wild danger and so destroy it - but actually steal it ain't possible?

I think both @Pipinghot and @invincibleqc have good points to make: @invincibleqc sez (sort of) "There is not enough whining to make this an issue", which I (being in software dev get - a lot). @Pipinghot sez the dev's ain't done it right because there is a serious gap in the game mechanics, which (given the discussion I also get - a lot)

But in short I must agree that the game mechanics are not as good as they might be, and that WC has been mostly reactive in the change mechanisms, rather than attempting a bit of forward planing against possible futures.

It would be really interesting (but I have had a HARD day at work and ain't got the strength to go there right now), to determin if tribe mechanics pre or post date the advent of C4 :)

[invincibleqc]

40 minutes ago, DirkInSA said:

Mmmm, I must also disagree with this comment.

What I meant is that players that can rightfully access specific structures or ride specific dinos within their tribe can do so how they see fit. The fact other members disapprove, or consider it insiding, is a tribe matter and is not something WC should be getting involved with and enforce as Pipinghot is suggesting. This is simply unrealistic to expect them to get involved and investigate these matters.

For example, a tribe owner randomly decide to kick everyone and keep everything. While many would consider that insiding, or morally wrong, the bottom line is; he was the rightful owner of everything and had the authority to do so. Same if an admin decide to take random stuff and leave; he was permitted to do so. Tribe politics and disputes are personal matters between the players involved, not something that should be covered by the CoC, in my opinion.

Now, when players don't have rightful access to a specific structure and use explosives to bypass tribe permissions, this is when it becomes the devs responsibility because the tools that are provided for players to secure their stuff can be exploited.

1 hour ago, DirkInSA said:

but I don't get how that allows a guy to pinch a tribes dinos? At best the dude could move it into wild danger and so destroy it - but actually steal it ain't possible?

By looting the content of cryofridges.

[RTGLoot]

As a vetting tribe it is sometimes hard to tell who is a insider and who is just unskilled at the game or just doesn’t understand the value of certain items and tames. 

[GrumpyBear]

On 4/18/2022 at 9:55 PM, invincibleqc said:

 

If you don't know someone, don't invite them into your home.

Anyways, all I was saying is that blaming WC for players behaviours makes no sense to me whatsoever.

Pretty funny - in the news last week.   A person had barricaded themselves inside a home of an acquaintance , the police used a tank to roll through a wall into the home to get this guy out after sending teargas into the home to try and get the man out.

 

The homeowner is on the hook for fixing the house.   Any laptop lawyer will say just sue, they have no clue.  Fighting the city to sue will be a huge headache, its not as easy as it sounds to sue the gov't.

[Pipinghot]

On 4/19/2022 at 11:52 AM, invincibleqc said:

So yeah, bypassing permissions through explosives to loot structures and weapons to loot dinos are the only issues here in my opinion.

Well crap, I just had a 20 minute reply get eaten by the forums. Clicked on Submit and nothing happened, the post disappeared into the ether. So much shorter version...

Looking at this one sentence, it looks like we might agree after all.

Players want this behavior to be a violation of PvE and WC doesn't get it, if WC could figure out how to fix their attitude about PvE and then make the changes to match their what their player base wants from PvE, they could essentially fix this problem. It's not hard to see what needs to be done, but first WC needs to fix their broken attitude.

[DirkInSA]

So we all agree - C4 is broken - and its mechanics should be addressed.

On 4/19/2022 at 9:00 PM, invincibleqc said:

By looting the content of cryofridges.

I still don't get it - unless cryo mechanics are also broken, and by uncryoing a thing its "ownership" is changed? A dino (baby or full grown) should follow the rules of ownership in the tribe, and if I pinch a cryo'd animal, leave the tribe, and uncryo it - it should still belong to the individual / tribe that tamed or hatched it? And therefore be of no use to me at all.

I can see fertilised eggs being a thing to steal - and that would be really irritating, but not materially damage the tribe that was robbed.

[GrumpyBear]

1 hour ago, DirkInSA said:

So we all agree - C4 is broken - and its mechanics should be addressed.

I still don't get it - unless cryo mechanics are also broken, and by uncryoing a thing its "ownership" is changed? A dino (baby or full grown) should follow the rules of ownership in the tribe, and if I pinch a cryo'd animal, leave the tribe, and uncryo it - it should still belong to the individual / tribe that tamed or hatched it? And therefore be of no use to me at all.

I can see fertilised eggs being a thing to steal - and that would be really irritating, but not materially damage the tribe that was robbed.

whoever unpods an animal owns it.  Break the fridges, loot the inventory bag.

[Pipinghot]

On 4/19/2022 at 3:00 PM, invincibleqc said:

The fact other members disapprove, or consider it insiding, is a tribe matter and is not something WC should be getting involved with and enforce as Pipinghot is suggesting.

I overlooked this post, I wasn't suggesting that at all.

Simple disagreements about 'who gets to use which animals' or 'how metal should be used' have nothing at all to do with insiding. Those are, as you say, intra-tribe politics and WC should never have to get involved in them.

* Insiding is abusing the guild ranking system and mechanics to do material damage to a tribe (usually in association with leaving the tribe).

We could have a long(er) discussion on what constitutes "material damage to a tribe" and I think that in the end we would have alot of agreement about what insiding is and what it isn't. But we don't need to, that would be a moot discussion because WC refuses to make insiding illegal, so it really doesn't matter which actions constitute insiding an which ones don't. Again, the root cause of this problem is that WC refuses to understand that their player base wants something different from PvE than WC wants, their player base thinks insiding should be illegal while WC doesn't get it.

[Pipinghot]

2 hours ago, DirkInSA said:

I still don't get it - unless cryo mechanics are also broken, and by uncryoing a thing its "ownership" is changed?

Yes, that's what happens.

Personally, I've always thought that was a pretty dopey decision, and it certainly causes a lot of confusion and annoyance among tribe members, even in tribes that are completely happy and friendly with each other.

If someone has a reason that they think this is a good decision I'd be interested to hear it and think about it, but in my experience it's never been anything but an annoyance.

[DirkInSA]

7 hours ago, GrumpyBear said:

whoever unpods an animal owns it.  Break the fridges, loot the inventory bag.

 

7 hours ago, Pipinghot said:

Yes, that's what happens.

That's WELL messed up!!!! It Viciously compounds the fail of C4 to tribe structures.
I can only think it was done that way to facilitate the mass sale of Dinos - So instead of having to unclaim the thing for the other guy to claim, one simply gives over a cryopod.

But NO that's well wrong!

And the implications for PVP are even worse! Not only are you foundation wiped, but some dude is now riding around on your pocket wyvern. Dead wrong!

[Martellus]

Amusing thread, thanks for sharing everyone. Kudos for kickstarting the topic.

[Blackmagic9000]

Good to see how everyone feels about this

 

Personally in my opinion it is never ok to inside, i rather take my chances living in a well hidden mesh base then to inside

 

It just shows how much of a scum you are, of course I'm talking about pvp mainly but pve just means your worst, I'm one of those players who have "honor"

 

I won't be afraid to do art of war tactics lol, hit and runs etc, other then that i hope everyone is doing well!