Jump to content

Census700

Resident
  • Content Count

    3
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About Census700

  • Rank
    Newbie

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Your approach in expressing Bloodline's bite permission mechanic makes it more agreeable. Competition arose in some free-to-play systems that oppose this for equally sounds reasons. To me, it's "to each their own". On point one in regards to "physical affect", I refer to bite animations, actively engaging the non-player in the player's in game activity (in Bloodlines, this is biting itself). With free-to-play games, such as Angels & Demons and Afterlife, no physical engagement transpires for the non-player. Any data generated on the avatar is in the fashion of procedural generation (such as a template applied to a previously-unscanned or un-blessed/cursed avatar) which doesn't exist anywhere but on the game system's database and doesn't cause any actual harm to the player. On point two, this is more extending a concept that goes with free-to-play models. Encouraging spending for system and company revenue is good, however it's a personally ideal thought that any non-player "killed" within a game system can still join said system without them or an active player investing for a "revival" as it forces a financial position caused likely by another player. This is more so a remark on current free-to-play game systems that require potions to purchase for "dead" non-players. Where stalking becomes a problem, game systems reinforce and support Community Standards and TOS and would encourage appropriate punishment for toxic behavior, just as player-to-player issues lead to in-game punishments from land bans to game bans. I believe it's also justifiable for club, store, and land owners to choose to generalize a ban of a system's players if that system doesn't offer any means to curb attacks (even if that is through product purchases). This offers a well-minded community to collective practice, and teach their new players, how to behave so as to not incur these issues. It also shows that a community is not in a collectively positive state when these privately owned places ban immediate poor behavior from a system and its community, or generalize the banning for detecting that user being a player.
  2. Thank you! This issue is among the major concerns I have with more than just Bloodlines. In how a game can instigate harassment of the non-players can vary. It would be twofold in minimizing this: 1. Make any in-game interaction not physically affect a non-player. 2. Data generated (as it is statistics generated upon first interaction with a player that leads to any further interaction) and altered (such as consuming life force) doesn't result in either A. Permanent death upon death nor B. Death being reversed by a player's investment. Ideally, a non-player can become a player without any additional investment - even with an opportunity to provide an alternative in gameplay experience.
  3. Games such as Bloodlines and Hunger, Angels & Demons and Progeny, have taken root in a part of Second Life that can easily draw you into only ever experiencing them for your Second Life. These games can become a way of life with bearing their HUDs, thus then being in their game with their features to participate without the harm of the non-participants (generally speaking, drama would be an exception). It is a major part of why I have started this poll where you can express what you like and don't like about any of these (and other) games that you have played. You can find the Google Forms poll right below: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfSRhzBZJWGaqjyLrhbkJ8rBavR4DB0j67iiaRqY_KfdtZKBg/viewform?usp=sf_link I appreciate any of your input in advance.
×
×
  • Create New...