Imagine paying $120 dollars to test your game and the GM bans you for attacking a streamer that chooses to stream it. Isn't his literal "job" to deal with that type of stuff? No one forces him to start on an already established server insted of (fresh start) and stream the game without a delay. Isn't that what he's getting paid for?
idk, I would like to hear other ppl thoughts on this.
External link →I want to be clear. Our PvP systems are intended to provide risk to the open world experience. When PvP is a result of political conflict, resource competition and/or opportunity... then we have hit the mark we are looking for. However, what I watched today with a streamer, however big or small, was a desire to grief this player from being able to play the game. That is, and will always be, an actionable offense. PvP = Good, Griefing = Bad
but what even is the point of having PVP on the starting location? This would’ve not happened if there are safe zones for beginning levels.
That tech is not yet online, we intend to ease players out of the starting zone with PvP protections. But that won’t be in till phase 2
It left a very sour taste in my mouth honestly and the thing is this happened with over 50k people watching his stream.
It's very bad. Maybe disable PvP in starting area?
That feature will not be online until phase 2
Ok so what if he wasnt running around in the starting zone, but protecting a caravan ?
Is it illegal to raid a streamers caravan now?
First, the caravan is the definition of opportunity. It is also an opt-in PvP system. If a streamer or non-streamer is running a caravan, they are an open target.
Don’t conflate griefing a level 1 who is logging into the game for the first time, with PvP. Some people I notice offer the false dichotomy of “either allow griefing or remove PvP entirely”. This is not the way. Exercise good judgement on what harassment is vs legitimate PvP.
devtrackers.gg
