greifers

[SteveLaw]

To be accurate this behaviour is less an abuse of a mechanic, more an exploit of the lack of a mechanic, specifically the lack of meaningful consequences for killing players for no gain.

Before anyone jumps all over the word "exploit" I'm using English not Gamer.

 

[Jockey79]

If you really think it's abuse of a game mechanic then feel free to report me (or anyone else) to FD whenever I repeatedly kill you and see what will FD's response be.

I see no point in further discussion.

What discussion?

You won't even admit how you force the Devs into wasting limited resources (their time for one) to counter what you know is abusing the game. Until you admit that, there is not a discussion, just you defending your actions.

 

[jou84]

If they killed you once, it's not griefing, it's just PvP, which is implicit in Open play. Much like playing on a PvP designated server, or entering an area in some games where you are flagged for PvP, by playing in Open you consented to the possibility that you might be attacked by another player. If you don't wish to be attacked by other players, yet still wish to interact with them, I would suggest creating or joining a PvE group. While there may be opportunities for PvP in a PvE group, the likelihood of unwanted attacks by other players is significantly less than in Open.

Had you been chased down and killed multiple times by the same player(s), that could constitute griefing. As it stands at present, you were just unfortunate enough to cross paths with someone looking to take out an easy target.

Whole heartedly agree. Griefing is getting killed by the same guy more than once for no good reason. People need to stop confusing a**holes with griefers.
Another thing people should remember the game is called Elite Dangerous, not Elite Happy Trucking Where Ever You Want

 

[SteveLaw]

Whole heartedly agree. Griefing is getting killed by the same guy more than once for no good reason.

What about the player who gets repeatedly killed by different players? The difference to them is entirely academic.

 

[Nikonthenet]

Heres a relevant, and recent(Jan 2015) comment from the Lead Developer regarding people who 'repeatedly' interdict the same person:

If you submit to interdiction simply to escape back to super cruise there is nothing preventing your assailant from repeatedly dragging you back down.

So, clearly, attacking the same person repeatedly, is an intended and acceptable part of the game design. Kinda nullifies those suggesting its abuse.

And everyone should be aware of this(not so recent) comment on Murder:

So, we've said we don't mind bad guys. In fact, we go further; we have bad guy gameplay options (piracy, smuggling etc.) By default, this includes psychopathic behaviour - randomly attacking other player "because you can".

It serves no one to be taking sides and getting emotional over this. Its neither abuse nor griefing to attack another player under any circumstances.

There really is no discussion here, other than, 'how can we improve the crime and punishment systems in the Galaxy.

And on a related note:

Offensive behaviour during communication, whether in game or on the forums is always unacceptable.

*snip*

On a personal note. I also find (even mildly) derogatory terms and statements unpleasant and unhelpful. They don't advance arguments and they are used to intentionally insult people/groups. It's perfectly fine to disagree, but it's not fine to insult (just as it's not fine face to face).

I also think that more civil (if not understanding) we can be (in game and on the forums) the more likely we are to grow the community which will be to the benefit of us all.

I think those people using confrontational and 'mildly derogatory' statements, need to check themselves and focus on how can we improve things, not name calling.

I personally feel hard criminals(murderers) should loose all Insurance entitlement(if destroyed locally) AND pay the bounty/fine, while law abiding bounty hunters, should have access to systems that alert them and direct them towards the criminal activity through use of 'emergency beacons'.

 

[Sandmann]

What about the player who gets repeatedly killed by different players? The difference to them is entirely academic.

Exactly.. the noob in the sidewinder who gets killed four times an hour by four different players doesn't comfort himself with the fact that it wasn't the same person. If he's not actually here for pvp he just gets discouraged and either goes to solo, or goes to play something else... and even if he IS here for pvp, if he keeps getting owned by more experienced players he's just as likely to be discouraged.

- - - Updated - - -

Heres a relevant, and recent(Jan 2015) comment from the Lead Developer regarding people who 'repeatedly' interdict the same person:

[snip - justifications - snip]

Yah, anyone can pull quotes out of context and I can come up with just as many out of context one liners from all sorts of people to back up our side too.

Semantics.

 

[SteveLaw]

So, clearly, attacking the same person repeatedly, is an intended and acceptable part of the game design.

To be accurate, he said it can happen that doesn't clearly prove that it's considered acceptable or intended, or otherwise.

 

[Nikonthenet]

Yah, anyone can pull quotes out of context and I can come up with just as many out of context one liners from all sorts of people to back up our side too.

Semantics.

How exactly is it out of context? Accusing people of Griefing and Abuse is indeed mildy derogatory. Your arguments don't have a leg to stand on Sandman. Shame as I read one of your posts earlier and thought you'd put the name calling behind us.

 

[Sandmann]

How exactly is it out of context? Accusing people of Griefing and Abuse is indeed mildy derogatory. Your arguments don't have a leg to stand on Sandman. Shame as I read one of your posts earlier and thought you'd put the name calling behind us.

If you consider the term "griefer" derogatory that's your problem... I consider it descriptive. If you can think of a term you'd prefer me to use suggest it and I'll consider it. Really though I'm not here to live up to your expectations, so take a guess how much I care about what you think is a "shame", ESPECIALLY since from my point of view you're trying to justify griefing?

 

[Nikonthenet]

To be accurate, he said it can happen that doesn't clearly prove that it's considered acceptable or intended, or otherwise.

The way I read his comment, in its context, is that its by design. The main point being, we still need a beneficial system for crime and punishment.

I could be wrong of course.

(I don't think I'm going to be able to finish this discussion as I have to go out shortly! but will check back)

 

[duanedibly]

What discussion?

You won't even admit how you force the Devs into wasting limited resources (their time for one) to counter what you know is abusing the game. Until you admit that, there is not a discussion, just you defending your actions.

What a surprise a mobius carebare weighs in on a discussion about pvp....
If you play in open, you accept the risk of being shot to pieces for exactly no reason. You accepted that when you selected play open mode.
If you are in a community goal event, you are increasing your risk of that consequence as you are going to have more players to interact with.

You dont know what people are RPing when they decide to interdict and kill another player, in their head, its totally legitimate, in yours..you were wronged; bad luck put on your big boy pants and move on.
If you keep going to a place where a commander is killing players, and you expect something different to happen, who is the stupid one here?

I agree that murder as it stands, has too little a penalty, this would take exactly 2 lines of code to fix. make the fine for killing another commander proportional to rebuy cost and watch crime go away, that is a very easy thing to do code wise. However, murder isnt griefing, there are bad people in the universe, just like real life, deal with it.

If you dont like it, go and play Elite:carebear in mobius. If you want a thrill, if you want an adrenalin rush that only pvp can provide, Play Elite: dangerous and go get your revenge.

Oh and for you mobius carebears out there...a great many of your numbers come into open merely to grief players, I know this for a fact, then they trade in mobius..more cowardice

 

[SteveLaw]

The way I read his comment, in its context, is that its by design. The main point being, we still need a beneficial system for crime and punishment.

I could be wrong of course.

I'm not saying your interpretation is right or wrong, just that's it's an interpretation.

 

[Sandmann]

mobius carebaree

Bzzt. You just lost this argument. The ED version of Godwin's Law just got you.

 

[Nikonthenet]

If you consider the term "griefer" derogatory that's your problem... I consider it descriptive. If you can think of a term you'd prefer me to use suggest it and I'll consider it. Really though I'm not here to live up to your expectations, so take a guess how much I care about what you think is a "shame", ESPECIALLY since from my point of view you're trying to justify griefing?

Yea, I can see the problem, its[the game] very different things to each of us. All we can do is accept the decisions made by FD, and work with those mechanics.

Griefing is to me totally unacceptable, just like bullying, etc. Therefore, those terms are derogatory. However, in my mind, ED is intended to be a cut-throat galaxy where each time you leave the safety of a station, you are at threat of death and destruction by the other inhabitants -irrelevant to me if they are NPC or player.

Further, ED is designed to allow what in many games may be called Griefing or Harassment even bullying. The difference being, ED has options available to the player to choose Open/Group/Solo -so players can never say 'I cannot escape the harassment'. Each player can totally avoid these situations by using the options when they logon, indeed, each player invites those situations each time they logon.

 

[Aratir]

Killing lower level players in gear and experience is not griefing or mindless murder or abuse of the game mechanic its a perfectly fine part of the game, they are weak and i cant kill anything else other than starter players and others who can't really fight back so i do that.

 

[JughedJones]

I don't give a rat's if you don't like it that I call it how I see it. The fact that I point out things like that doesn't make me wrong, nor does the fact that you disagree. So really, you can take your opinion and put it where the sun don't shine, chum.

- - - Updated - - -

Please stop being such a bully. I feel abused by you.

 

[Krieger]

Not only did I not mention Quake or Unreal at all, it would appear you missed entirely the point of the comment. Some games, not only shooters, have specific servers for PvP and/or zones in the game that automatically flag you for PvP. Like those, playing in Open in Elite Dangerous implies that you accept the risk of being attacked. There is no ambiguity there. If you don't want to be attacked by another player, you opt for a game mode that precludes PvP, such as (in this case) Solo or Group mode (the ED equivalent of PvE servers/zones).

Killing someone once is not necessarily griefing. It can be, in some situations, but is not universally going to be the case 100% of the time. Choosing to play in Open, like choosing to play on a PvP server in other games, when there are alternatives available that reduce or remove the chances of being attacked by other players, means you knowingly chose to be in that mode and accept the fact that you may become a target. Again, there is no ambiguity there. One does not play in a mode that is specifically designed to promote/include PvP and still expect to remain unmolested 100% of the time.

In fact, your assertion that Quake and Unreal are 'PvP-only' is also incorrect. Both have 'PvE' modes available, as does Elite Dangerous. If you don't want to face another player in combat, you simply choose the campaign or bot matches instead.

Griefing, by it's very nature and definition, is intentional. There is no 'accidental' to it at all.

You snipped off the part of my comment that said that I think the whole discussion about the definition of griefing is just a distraction. I think the same about discussing Quake and Unreal and other games being pure PvP and/or mixed PvP/PvE games and other details of gameplay.
.
Also I do not object to PvP in open but it is just an option in dealing with other players sometimes it is not the default.
.
To be clear: I object to open mode being claimed by players who want PvP-combat to be the dominating type of gameplay. They have no right to send (scare?) away all other players to solo or private mode. I think those PvP-ers should act more responsibly and create an Elite: Arena private group to deconclict themselves with the rest of the players. That way open mode can stay the common ground where all players can meet and play (and sometimes battle).

 

[Sandmann]

Yea, I can see the problem, its[the game] very different things to each of us. All we can do is accept the decisions made by FD, and work with those mechanics.
Griefing is to me totally unacceptable, just like bullying, etc. Therefore, those terms are derogatory.

This part at least we can agree on.

However, in my mind, ED is intended to be a cut-throat galaxy where each time you leave the safety of a station, you are at threat of death and destruction by the other inhabitants -irrelevant to me if they are NPC or player.

You're right, here's where we differ. To me the "dangerous" parts of ED are as you describe... but the "civilised" parts have a much reduced risk comparative. This is WHY we have anarchies.. you don't need to define certain parts as anarchies if the whole place is without rule of law. The way it is right now the entire galaxy is an anarchy, just that some bits of it you can claim bounties in and others you can't. If it were MEANT to be this way they wouldn't be doing "crime specials" etc.

Further, ED is designed to allow what in many games may be called Griefing or Harassment even bullying.

The fact that systems aren't in place to prevent it doesn't mean it was designed to promote it. Your logic is flawed. The fact that there's mushrooms in the garden doesn't mean they were put there by pixies.

The difference being, ED has options available to the player to choose Open/Group/Solo -so players can never say 'I cannot escape the harassment'. Each player can totally avoid these situations by using the options when they logon, indeed, each player invites those situations each time they logon.

Here it is again.. "it's not griefing coz there's another mode where I can't get you so if you choose to remain here you MUST be ok with it". No, that's crap. Just because there's an escape clause, doesn't make the problem behaviour any less of a problem.

- - - Updated - - -

Please stop being such a bully. I feel abused by you.

Again, not my problem. Why don't you go play in the solo forum if you feel so abused, forumbear?

 

[Nikonthenet]

Sandman, but the quotes I've already posted leaving no ambiguity, murder "because you can" is acceptable and so is "repeatedly interdicting the same person"...?

So I'm lost at your comments. You seem to want to conflict on the forums, but not in-game.

The only issue I see here is that the mechanics that address crime and punishment, and as consequence, secure 'civilised' space, simply don't work.

EDIT:

Anway, I'm off out and then hitting the space lanes...take care.

 

[Sandmann]

Sandman, but the quotes I've already posted leaving no ambiguity, murder "because you can" is acceptable and so is "repeatedly interdicting the same person"...?

You pick and choose your supporting comments while ignoring a bunch of conflicting evidence even when it's presented on a silver platter. There's a huge difference between "the game doesn't stop me doing this thing" and "this thing makes the game enjoyable for everyone".

The only issue I see here is that the mechanics that address crime and punishment, and as consequence, secure 'civilised' space, simply don't work.

Again, something we agree on. The mechanics don't work. If they DID work the anarchies would be more dangerous and the civilised areas would be safer. As it is now the anarchies are pretty much unpopulated and the civilised places are the dangerous ones... and the starter systems with the greatest number of sidewinders are the most dangerous. However (conflicting evidence you keep ignoring coming up here) the fact that FD are pushing their "crime and consequence" thing (as much as I think the basis of it is broken) shows that while they don't intend to stamp out crime, they also intend for it to have strong consequences... contrary to the vision you seem to think FD have of a pvp utopia. In short, they intend for it to be TREATED AS A CRIME... not as a sanctioned, "normalised" action.