Thank you Michael Brookes

[The Wallet Inspector]

Sure thing it's Wikipedia. Do you have a better source?

I don;t need one, just making an observation. Using wikipedia for definitions is spurious in a debate. My "source" is the actions of the Code and what they write here. They don't seem like griefers at all. Either way, it can be edited by anyone so it is not much of an authority, but that is just an opinion of mine (and others).. I can just use my own definition "A label given to people in online games to discredit them"

 

[GluttonyFang]

11 SEP 2015. 3:45pm. Sol system - Earth. Cambridge, UK:

Dev 1: "How was your week monitoring the forums?"
Dev 2: "Awesome! For the first time in forever, a group other than us was more hated!"
Dev 1: "Really? No complaints about the AI being too hard? No one upset about an item from the 2013 DDF not being present?"
Dev 2: "No! Seriously, everyone hates The Code more than us Devs now! It's great!"
Dev 1: "Fantastic! The plan worked! First round on me!"

Have a great weekend Devs!

I now fully know how devs feel when they are hated...

Since I know the pain...

I'm gonna keep on criticizing! (With less aggression, of course)

 

[The Wallet Inspector]

Sure thing it's Wikipedia. Do you have a better source?

EDIT: You probably don't know Wikipedia very well if you still think that an entry can be edited every 5 minutes...

Either way, it has little to do with the Codes antics. I for one welcome them, and don't consider what they did griefing. Still only takes a minute to edit

 

[Dakron Nova]

The CODE, like the Fuel Rats is a well organised group of players (the moral argument of intent I'm not that bothered about). But there is nothing stopping similar groups from forming to oppose them carrying out their mandate.

So why not do that.

 

[The Wallet Inspector]

The CODE, like the Fuel Rats is a well organised group of players (the moral argument of intent I'm not that bothered about). But there is nothing stopping similar groups from forming to oppose them carrying out their mandate.

So why not do that.

Indeed, if every commander who hated them did something about it, they would be the ones on the run. I think they would welcome some determined opposition.

 

[JosiahD]

Either way, it has little to do with the Codes antics. I for one welcome them, and don't consider what they did griefing. Still only takes a minute to edit

For mine, attempting to blockade, in and of itself, is not griefing. Pointless yes, given the in-game tools to avoid it (by design), but griefing no. The tactics used to try to enforce that attempted, and ultimately failed, blockade on the other hand did indeed include griefing tactics. Not in its entirety, but let's face it. Things like deliberately blocking a landing pad, exploiting the loopholes in the game there, with the deliberate intent of ruining other people's day would be considered a griefing act by most people, whether it occurred at Hutton during this CG or anywhere else. It comes down to intent rather than the action per se, and just as importantly the perceptions the actions create in the mind of the person on the receiving end. It's easy to forget (or choose to ignore perhaps?) that on the other end of those pixels you're ramming, murdering or oherwise disrupting is a real human being and for many people actions in-game invoke the same emotions as if they had been carried out outside of the game.

 

[The Wallet Inspector]

For mine, attempting to blockade, in and of itself, is not griefing. Pointless yes, given the in-game tools to avoid it (by design), but griefing no. The tactics used to try to enforce that attempted, and ultimately failed, blockade on the other hand did indeed include griefing tactics. Not in its entirety, but let's face it. Things like deliberately blocking a landing pad, exploiting the loopholes in the game there, with the deliberate intent of ruining other people's day would be considered a griefing act by most people, whether it occurred at Hutton during this CG or anywhere else. It comes down to intent rather than the action per se, and just as importantly the perceptions the actions create in the mind of the person on the receiving end. It's easy to forget (or choose to ignore perhaps?) that on the other end of those pixels you're ramming, murdering or oherwise disrupting is a real human being and for many people actions in-game invoke the same emotions as if they had been carried out outside of the game.

Either way, I like how they were referred to as "opposition" and not griefers...

 

[JosiahD]

The CODE, like the Fuel Rats is a well organised group of players (the moral argument of intent I'm not that bothered about). But there is nothing stopping similar groups from forming to oppose them carrying out their mandate.

So why not do that.

There's also nothing wrong with expecting meaningful consequences in-game from actions that would constitute a major crime in what is primarily a PvE game. The expectation that players would police the actions of others would be fine if this were primarily a PvP game but it's not - it's a PvE game within which PvP can occur. Because it's PvE, expecting, even demanding (as some seem to), that players who are not interested in PvP should engage in PvP in order to counter the antisocial, and sometimes rather arrogant, behaviour of a few is just plain wrong.

 

[JosiahD]

Either way, I like how they were referred to as "opposition" and not griefers...

Except members of the CODE weren't the only opposition were they? Other pirates were involved were they not? Had Mike used the word 'griefer', he would have been tarring all with the same brush. Doesn't mean the actions, or at least some actions, of the CODE aren't considered griefing by Frontier. I think you're reading too much into Mike's comment and drawing a conclusion that is not necessarily accurate. It might be, but I doubt it.

 

[The Wallet Inspector]

There's also nothing wrong with expecting meaningful consequences in-game from actions that would constitute a major crime in what is primarily a PvE game. The expectation that players would police the actions of others would be fine if this were primarily a PvP game but it's not - it's a PvE game within which PvP can occur. Because it's PvE, expecting, even demanding (as some seem to), that players who are not interested in PvP should engage in PvP in order to counter the antisocial, and sometimes rather arrogant, behaviour of a few is just plain wrong.

"in what is primarily a PvE game. "

This is subjective though, for some people it is a PvP game, but it is down to how you play it. You can "play it your way", and that includes prioritizing PvP in your playtime.

"The expectation that players would police the actions of others"

This was an expectation of Brabens though, he said he expected the community to fight back.

"- it's a PvE game within which PvP can occur"

Again, this is not a PvE issue, the thread is about a PvP group, their actions, and how they are viewed. This seems more like a point for the Open/Solo/Groups thread.

"counter the antisocial, and sometimes rather arrogant,"

This is what I mean by pejorative terms being used against legitimate gamers who paid and are part of the Open community. Whether this is primarily a (insert opinion here) game is irrelevant, this behavior is part of the Open World. If you want to play PvE you can! They provide all of these equal and valid game modes to PvE in. The Open world is a harsh place with PvP in. I like it that way, but that is just my opinion

- - - Updated - - -

Except members of the CODE weren't the only opposition were they? Other pirates were involved were they not? Had Mike used the word 'griefer', he would have been tarring all with the same brush. Doesn't mean the actions, or at least some actions, of the CODE aren't considered griefing by Frontier. I think you're reading too much into Mike's comment and drawing a conclusion that is not necessarily accurate. It might be, but I doubt it.

Oh so he was referring to some "other" opposition. Wonder what he could mean lol, given these guys seem to be the talk of the town, and the only opposition I heard about. Perhaps The Code just confused the legitimate scrap haulers with all those "pirates" who were getting in the way Either way, he did not mention any griefing at the goal, and that is still a welcome sign given it is all some people are talking about.. I am prepared to admit my conclusion may not accurate though, as I do not know Michael at all. Just an observation though...

 

[CMDR Kantos Kan]

The CODE, like the Fuel Rats is a well organised group of players (the moral argument of intent I'm not that bothered about). But there is nothing stopping similar groups from forming to oppose them carrying out their mandate.

So why not do that.

The problem with this is the "instancing", or the way the network is handled by the client. Namely, because of the peer-to-peer network design that Frontier chose, there is a maximum number of people that can be "together" in the same place at the same time. As evidenced by the Hutton Orbital CG. Some people were playing in open and said they never seen any ships or blockade. Someone participating in the CG setup a group of fighters to chase the blockaders away only to never be able to be in the same "instance" than them.

So, creating a policing group sounds good at first but because of the game design, you would spend a lot of time tracking anyone that is wanted.

 

[Herik]

Thank you Michael, for referring to "The Code" as "Opposition" in your post about the community goal, and not "griefers". It is heartwarming to see a Dev refer to them in a respectful manner.

View attachment 61699

In my opinion more than a bit lenient (from Michael), but as JosiahD stated: "Other pirates were involved were they not? Had Mike used the word 'griefer', he would have been tarring all with the same brush."...and of course the Code does not deserve respect...

 

[The Wallet Inspector]

In my opinion more than a bit lenient (from Michael), but as JosiahD stated: "Other pirates were involved were they not? Had Mike used the word 'griefer', he would have been tarring all with the same brush."...and of course the Code does not deserve respect...

"...and of course the Code does not deserve respect..."

Not objective though, just your opinion, Which you are entitled to

" "Other pirates were involved were they not? "

See my above post ^^^

 

[Jukelo]

Certain ACTIONS by CODE could be defined by griefing (bumping within station perimeter) but most of the other actions was a legitimate blockade with some questionable use of broken game mechanic (limited police response, no backup called in etc).

Ramming in the no fire zone was an exploit back when there were no consequences for it. FD have added speeding fines to address that issue, so it is now a legitimate part of the gameplay.

 

[Zieman]

Ramming in the no fire zone was an exploit back when there were no consequences for it. FD have added speeding fines to address that issue, so it is now a legitimate part of the gameplay.

Ramming under speed of 100 m/s in no fire zone has no consequences, it is an exploit.

 

[Jacob Marshall]

Ramming under speed of 100 m/s in no fire zone has no consequences, it is an exploit.

Never had cause to come across this...so if I'm at Speed 95 and you ram me ()?

 

[Jukelo]

Ramming under speed of 100 m/s in no fire zone has no consequences, it is an exploit.

Frontier explicitely made a rule saying that ramming under 100m/s should bear no consequences. It is obviously fine by them (or are you saying it is impossible to avoid a ship moving at a whooping 100m/s?), and as such not an exploit. Learn to play the game and include its mechanics into your decisions.

 

[The Wallet Inspector]

Frontier explicitely made a rule saying that ramming under 100m/s should bear no consequences. It is obviously fine by them, and as such not an exploit.

They should have been here when there was no speed limit... now THAT was tough

 

[Bill Clement]

I think it's unrealistic to expect a staff member to announce to the real world that a major community goal as quaint, fanciful and charming as taking scrap metal over a fifth of a light year in supercruise was dog piled by well organised griefers using carefully researched game exploits. Perhaps his comment was intended to praise the community, but clearly it's only further validated the anti social behaviour of a small minority intent on getting their kicks out of ruining the game experience of a large number of individuals. It has to be blatantly obvious that this CG was going to appeal to traders and explorers- the griefers knew there would be plenty of weaker targets to bully, players interested in combat missions are unlikely to sit in supercruise for an hour and a half just on the off chance of meeting a pirate at the other end...

Add in the difficulty of getting defenders or hunting groups into the same instance as the griefers- another exploit that one of their members gleefully boasts about on this forum- and organised player resistance is unlikely. They know this and use it to their advantage.

Consider that their spokesperson, in spite of much rhetoric about combat skills, ran away when faced with a serious opponent. His own actions show he, like his boastful cohort, isn't interested in testing his skill against equally capable or equipped players. But they do want to kill other players. Call it for what it is people- they're ganking n00bs, seal clubbing, griefing, exploiting, or in plain, old fashioned English, they're just bullies. They're not worthy of anyone's respect.

 

[The Wallet Inspector]

I think it's unrealistic to expect a staff member to announce to the real world that a major community goal as quaint, fanciful and charming as taking scrap metal over a fifth of a light year in supercruise was dog piled by well organised griefers using carefully researched game exploits. Perhaps his comment was intended to praise the community, but clearly it's only further validated the anti social behaviour of a small minority intent on getting their kicks out of ruining the game experience of a large number of individuals. It has to be blatantly obvious that this CG was going to appeal to traders and explorers- the griefers knew there would be plenty of weaker targets to bully, players interested in combat missions are unlikely to sit in supercruise for an hour and a half just on the off chance of meeting a pirate at the other end...

Add in the difficulty of getting defenders or hunting groups into the same instance as the griefers- another exploit that one of their members gleefully boasts about on this forum- and organised player resistance is unlikely. They know this and use it to their advantage.

Consider that their spokesperson, in spite of much rhetoric about combat skills, ran away when faced with a serious opponent. His own actions show he, like his boastful cohort, isn't interested in testing his skill against equally capable or equipped players. But they do want to kill other players. Call it for what it is people- they're ganking n00bs, seal clubbing, griefing, exploiting, or in plain, old fashioned English, they're just bullies. They're not worthy of anyone's respect.

"I think it's unrealistic to expect a staff member to announce to the real world that a major community goal as quaint, fanciful and charming as taking scrap metal over a fifth of a light year in supercruise was dog piled by well organised griefers using carefully researched game exploits. "

Why would he say that lol? As I said, I like the fact he was respectful. A good example for the community here.

"but clearly it's only further validated the anti social behaviour of a small minority intent on getting their kicks out of ruining the game experience of a large number of individuals."

That is just your opinion though, It did not ruin my game. I have heard from many commanders who think this was a great event.

" It has to be blatantly obvious that this CG was going to appeal to traders and explorers"

And to those wishing to interdict and kill those traders.

"Add in the difficulty of getting defenders or hunting groups into the same instance as the griefers- another exploit that one of their members gleefully boasts about on this forum- and organised player resistance is unlikely. They know this and use it to their advantage. "

I am not aware of anyone who even tried to stop them, except for a Cmdr in a facebook group I know. They lost their Anaconda to the code. They had a good time.

"Consider that their spokesperson, in spite of much rhetoric about combat skills, ran away when faced with a serious opponent."

Good on the player who chased him away then, good show! But, running away is part of the game. At least he did not start name calling, he shows dignity in my opinion.

"they're ganking n00bs, seal clubbing"

Well, I agree it is what it is. They probably don;t like being called seals and n00bs though, but since I am neither, I don't mind.