If I misinterpreted, it was not my intention.
I think I agree with your argument.
Griefing: Is it?
- Thread starter Layne Vakarian
- Start date
If I misinterpreted, it was not my intention.
I think I agree with your argument.
Considering the idiomatic analogy "a pigeon playing chess" is used to describe ignorant people in a debate, I find it funny that you would be aggrieved by someone else calling you what you call them. But no, I was not calling you ignorant, you called yourself ignorant.
I take it you have nothing constructive left to say so are just trying to troll people you consider an "opposition"?
As I've said, it's up to your discretion and I respect your opinion. As long as it does not violate the forum rules.
Therefore there is no need to be redundant.
"if we want the game to be better, we need to work with each other to improve the community aspect"
Yes, FD does not pay any attention to the quality of arguments and the voracity of the insults. They are logging vast stats and have data mining software informing them
what people are doing. They have corporate goals for the game. When the stats do not match their goals, they make "balancing" adjustments. Mostly these internal goals represent
the owners personal satisfaction in providing to the public the game they themselves want to play, believing there are others which also want to play.
The goals of course represent present and future sales. Should these numbers falter or are perceived as potentially faltering, this would result in "adjustments" and "balancing."
We know what may of the goals are including the ability to engage in human and AI combat. To role play various job descriptions using time invested in the game to represent
the ability to advance one's own game incentives.
When human combat interferes with a person's game satisfaction, provide alternatives where the human element is reduced or eliminated.
If a person's game satisfaction involves the maximum amount of player interaction, being overly aggressive will eventually reduce the availability of human interaction.
Removing the ability entirely to avoid aggressive player interaction will render the game untenable to new players and will reduce FD's income and marketability, so will not happen.
Everyone by now knows the formula.
Open play vs Private or group is increased risk. Everyone chooses their risk.
Being pledged to a power is increased risk. Everyone chooses their risk.
Piloting your ship in human congested areas known to attract griefers is increased risk.
Needless to say, if you are a person who believes you should be able to do all or any the above with no risk, then this is not the game you bought and never will be the game you bought.
Griefers are here to stay. All you can do is make the correct response which are many and known. The game is not going to change the rules to make them go away.
-Pv-
Yes, FD does not pay any attention to the quality of arguments and the voracity of the insults. They are logging vast stats and have data mining software informing them
what people are doing. They have corporate goals for the game. When the stats do not match their goals, they make "balancing" adjustments. Mostly these internal goals represent
the owners personal satisfaction in providing to the public the game they themselves want to play, believing there are others which also want to play.
The goals of course represent present and future sales. Should these numbers falter or are perceived as potentially faltering, this would result in "adjustments" and "balancing."
We know what may of the goals are including the ability to engage in human and AI combat. To role play various job descriptions using time invested in the game to represent
the ability to advance one's own game incentives.
When human combat interferes with a person's game satisfaction, provide alternatives where the human element is reduced or eliminated.
If a person's game satisfaction involves the maximum amount of player interaction, being overly aggressive will eventually reduce the availability of human interaction.
Removing the ability entirely to avoid aggressive player interaction will render the game untenable to new players and will reduce FD's income and marketability, so will not happen.
Everyone by now knows the formula.
Open play vs Private or group is increased risk. Everyone chooses their risk.
Being pledged to a power is increased risk. Everyone chooses their risk.
Piloting your ship in human congested areas known to attract griefers is increased risk.
Needless to say, if you are a person who believes you should be able to do all or any the above with no risk, then this is not the game you bought and never will be the game you bought.
Griefers are here to stay. All you can do is make the correct response which are many and known. The game is not going to change the rules to make them go away.
-Pv-
Last edited:
"If your point is that kicking someone in a head is social behavior, I'll just go ahead and ignorantly brand you as a pigeon that plays chess."
The game allows both anti-social and pro-social as well as slave trading. Debating the quality or shades of grey concerning what is pro-social (social stability) or anti-scocial (instability) gets us no where.
What to do about griefers in the context of the game we bought.
Avoid them. Shoot them.
-Pv-
The game allows both anti-social and pro-social as well as slave trading. Debating the quality or shades of grey concerning what is pro-social (social stability) or anti-scocial (instability) gets us no where.
What to do about griefers in the context of the game we bought.
Avoid them. Shoot them.
-Pv-
Last edited:
The problem is, there is no risk for pirates/greifers, whatever you want to call them, there are no consequences at all.
For me, being a pirate/psycho would come with massive costs.
1) Massive increases insurance. What insurance company is going to insure pirates? They are not, simple as that and any third party intermediate will charge a fortune. Any pirate killed in system/faction where they are wanted/recognised you don't get insurance or at incredibly high levels.
2) Pirates should banned from docking in systems/factions that they are pirating in. Yes that also means if pirate in Federation space, you will not be able to dock at federation stations. You would have to go elsewhere, like making uses of pirate bases where you would get missions for piracy. Why would a station let known pirates who have been killing civilians land at the station, they wouldn't unless it was to ask the pilot what colour soap they would like to pick up.
This also means that pirates would not be able to do the best trade and make millions, your pirates, you can't have everything.
3) System security should applied accordingly, pirate in a wealthy system with good security and you might as well roll over and smile, unless you are the best of the best. Whilst it is easy to pirate in anarchy systems or systems with poor security.
4) As for people that just want go around slaughtering people for fun? Fine do that, but be prepared to be restricted here there and everywhere. And eventually the only ship you will be able to kit out, is your free sidewinder... If you can get out the station without getting shot at.
Yes people can play whatever way they want, but they had better accept that their are pro's and con's to everything.
If traders want to earn big money, the best routes should be from the lower policed outer rim systems (More piracy) to the better protected systems. So traders know they have a chance of meeting up pirates (proper cost and reward) or they can stay safe earn lower profits but know they are much much safer as it would hard to pirate in better protected systems.
There is no risk to being pirate, but you try to make it risky and the pirates are the first ones to cry like babies and say it is not fair, why should being a pirate come with consequences...
Last edited:
Would rep if I could
I am not a crook, I mean pirate. Nor do I typically hunt CMDRs for sport.
But.
The game offers slaves for sale. We are regularly offered morally objectionable missions and cargo at any number of stations. This game includes elements that aren't within what might be otherwise considered social norms.
The OP suggests ramming is greifing. No, it's working within the game constraints to affect an outcome. I am sorry if this affects people's sensibilities - but once again this touches on the same aspect of why folks want the game to ensure every income source is the same credits per minute, or all ships get nerfs until then reach some imagined state of balance, or how pirates should be nicer people, or any of the other calls to, basically, suck entertainment out of the game.
In short: "I want the game to be what I believe is right and suitable." Elite was never anything close to that. It's a space sim. With a lot of violence, morally questionable choices - and profits to be made.
I don't give a crap if ramming isn't nice and would the people please stop that thanks. I have been rammed. I have rammed. It's useful. Effective. A dirty tricks methodology? Absolutely.
The argument over punishment of killing a fellow CMDR and the 'cost' of that from a penalty state is pretty simple. It won't ever make people happy. Regardless of what is done. There really isn't a middle ground on this. FD know this. They try to find some kind of consequence. But it won't ever the right amount of "enough".
Just as a side note - excusing being a jerkwad by saying "oh I just RP a psycho" does give me a chuckle. U wot m8? Please. Own your rage. Don't pretend that your are actually a real nice guy but you play a jerk on tv.
For heavens sake the game treats loitering as a sufficient crime that you should die for it. NO LOLIGAGGIN.
In ED, life is short, sometimes violent and very cheap. Community events will attract pirates, psychos, parental units and every other person across every possible mental spectrum you can think of. If you go into open, and to an area that is part of such an event, then you do so in the knowledge that it might not end well.
In fact it is almost certain to not end well. Prepare to accept some defeat. But know there is a chance and maybe that chance is worth it.
If you are quite fortunate, you'll manage to achieve part of the goal. Or you might die a lot. That's the risk/ reward that comes with such a social event. Picking the right ship for the job (credits willing) and then understanding how to best use it is often the key.
If it's a delivery, what will give me epic speed and enough resilience to make the slot? Is there a blockade? Can I run cold enough long enough to jump out, go dark and heatsink my way to victory? If not, what else can I do? Maybe jump in behind the station and skim the hull to stay inside the no fire zone. Is it a station or an outpost? Where are the pads on the outpost and will I be blockaded by a a landed ship. Can I wing up and form a stealth/ goon squad. Or ride in with more shields and armour than seems possible. Can I high wake back and forth into the target sector until it looks like the coast is mostly clear. How far is the destination from the Nav beacon?
And sometimes it is even more simple - is it even worth it?
I am no fan of people callously murdering others for absolutely no point. But it's part of the universe we fly in. Space is dangerous. No matter what is done, people will always find a way. So you can either bury yourself in trying to stop that; or realise it won't and instead understand your ship, your own limitations as well as the strengths you bring to the game. You aren't someone else. Use that to advantage.
Own your existence in Elite. Don't let others own it for you.
But.
The game offers slaves for sale. We are regularly offered morally objectionable missions and cargo at any number of stations. This game includes elements that aren't within what might be otherwise considered social norms.
The OP suggests ramming is greifing. No, it's working within the game constraints to affect an outcome. I am sorry if this affects people's sensibilities - but once again this touches on the same aspect of why folks want the game to ensure every income source is the same credits per minute, or all ships get nerfs until then reach some imagined state of balance, or how pirates should be nicer people, or any of the other calls to, basically, suck entertainment out of the game.
In short: "I want the game to be what I believe is right and suitable." Elite was never anything close to that. It's a space sim. With a lot of violence, morally questionable choices - and profits to be made.
I don't give a crap if ramming isn't nice and would the people please stop that thanks. I have been rammed. I have rammed. It's useful. Effective. A dirty tricks methodology? Absolutely.
The argument over punishment of killing a fellow CMDR and the 'cost' of that from a penalty state is pretty simple. It won't ever make people happy. Regardless of what is done. There really isn't a middle ground on this. FD know this. They try to find some kind of consequence. But it won't ever the right amount of "enough".
Just as a side note - excusing being a jerkwad by saying "oh I just RP a psycho" does give me a chuckle. U wot m8? Please. Own your rage. Don't pretend that your are actually a real nice guy but you play a jerk on tv.
For heavens sake the game treats loitering as a sufficient crime that you should die for it. NO LOLIGAGGIN.
In ED, life is short, sometimes violent and very cheap. Community events will attract pirates, psychos, parental units and every other person across every possible mental spectrum you can think of. If you go into open, and to an area that is part of such an event, then you do so in the knowledge that it might not end well.
In fact it is almost certain to not end well. Prepare to accept some defeat. But know there is a chance and maybe that chance is worth it.
If you are quite fortunate, you'll manage to achieve part of the goal. Or you might die a lot. That's the risk/ reward that comes with such a social event. Picking the right ship for the job (credits willing) and then understanding how to best use it is often the key.
If it's a delivery, what will give me epic speed and enough resilience to make the slot? Is there a blockade? Can I run cold enough long enough to jump out, go dark and heatsink my way to victory? If not, what else can I do? Maybe jump in behind the station and skim the hull to stay inside the no fire zone. Is it a station or an outpost? Where are the pads on the outpost and will I be blockaded by a a landed ship. Can I wing up and form a stealth/ goon squad. Or ride in with more shields and armour than seems possible. Can I high wake back and forth into the target sector until it looks like the coast is mostly clear. How far is the destination from the Nav beacon?
And sometimes it is even more simple - is it even worth it?
I am no fan of people callously murdering others for absolutely no point. But it's part of the universe we fly in. Space is dangerous. No matter what is done, people will always find a way. So you can either bury yourself in trying to stop that; or realise it won't and instead understand your ship, your own limitations as well as the strengths you bring to the game. You aren't someone else. Use that to advantage.
Own your existence in Elite. Don't let others own it for you.
Last edited:
Yes. There is a risk/reward for traders/explorers/smugglers. But where's the risk/reward for the pirates that create the risks!? Traders run the risk of losing all their assets in a single haul of cargo for the reward of making good profits. Explorers run the risk of dying alone in far off space for the reward of good pay for their data and seeing wonderful sights. Smugglers... not so much; their only real risk is fines (which can be avoided easily), and it pays well.
But pirates. For the reward of getting to kill who they want, and pirating big cargo holds of valuable materials... they face what risk? Paying their insurance in the event they die? Of all players in Elite I believe pirates/murderers/psychos have it easiest, which doesn't make sense because they're usually the ones creating the risk for everyone else!
Pirates in this game are not "griefers." Consequence should be balanced, currently the problem is combat logging not having a noticeable consequence. Once that's put into the picture, harsher consequence can be shipped along with it.
Pirate isn't equivalent to psycho in my opinion. Piracy should be a profession that is intrinsically equivalent to any other profession. Pirates realistically deal with a lot of risk and equivalently a large amount of risk, but piracy isn't rewarding currently, it is the least rewarding profession in Elite. Once that changes, harsher consequences can come with it.
Countries reconcile with pirates and provide them special status as long as they are willing to fight for them. Also, wealthy organizations and countries hire "pirates" to launch attacks on other countries. There will always be people willing to back up pirates in the background.
Though I would agree that we should see a small insurance increase, only if piracy and other related amoral activities are properly rewarded.
Identity masking isn't difficult in this age, and I think it isn't difficult in the future.
If we are contemplating this change, then we should look at buffing piracy and criminal activity even further to balance this out.
The problem is we don't have anything to begin with, no rewarding credits to justify our risk. Also, identity masking.
If we are contemplating this change, then we should look at massively increasing black market profit.
Indeed, this is a proposal suggested by some. However, this would make sense if piracy is seriously buffed.
Killing people for fun is a type of RP, if someone is seriously a "griefer," said individual would be literally reported everywhere and by everyone, then FD will come in and examine the evidence to punish said individual if the evidence holds.
Indeed, and currently piracy does not reward people properly, therefore unless it is addressed, more negative consequences cannot be justified.
I've addressed this earlier. It comes hand in hand with criminal activity buff.
Right now there's close to no reward, therefore asking for more negative consequences is unreasonable.
If you actually have knowledge of piracy or have extensively committed piracy, perhaps you would have more solid ground to stand on. But as it is, it seems like you don't understand the current status of criminal activities.
"There's no risk in trading, exploring, mining, nor smuggling, but you try to make it risky and players of said professions are the first ones to cry like babies and say it is not fair, why should players of said professions ever have to worry about consequences..."
See what I did there?
Last edited:
I'll believe this when I see it. Until FDev make some kind of attempt to make life harder for pirates/murderers/psychos, this point is null.
I don't think you understand the amount of skill and effort necessary for committing proper piracy.
- - - Updated - - -
Until FD makes some kind of attempt to make life harder for every other profession and seriously create profit for amoral professions, this point is null.
See what I did there?
Some sociopaths are pirates, but not all pirates are sociopaths. That you lump greifing, killing without reasons or compunction and straight out sociopathic tendencies into the same argument, I am afraid doesn't help.
I do not agree. I would like to see "letters of marquee" for pirates, much like the privateers had during the days of British piracy, but they aren't there. There is a pirate faction though, so we really can't exactly ban it.
Pirates are also at risk of a hauler calling in friends who wing up and go hunting. So it's not all free candy. Piracy is a terrible income source. Trading in open, is dangerous. The game is called Elite: Dangerous. It's called that for a reason.
And lumping random killers with pirates doesn't help your argument.
I agree.
again, you lump a profession with a social interaction. I am afraid doing so makes it impossible to have a reasoned debate. I actually agree with the pirate above. Maybe I should join his band of merry souls. They actually seem to have some sense of code and don't just blindly label.
How weird is that?
again, you lump a profession with a social interaction. I am afraid doing so makes it impossible to have a reasoned debate. I actually agree with the pirate above. Maybe I should join his band of merry souls. They actually seem to have some sense of code and don't just blindly label.
How weird is that?
Heh, I appreciate your support, and we will always welcome another merry soul.
Cba to edit my way through that mess, so here.
1) you talk about countries reconciling with pirates? Pirates fighting wars for nations? Right. When this mechanic exists , come find me. In the meantime, pirates can dock at whatever station they want, no questions asked, no "reconciliation" involved. It shouldn't be this way.
2) You say pirates have no reward. Perhaps this is synonymous with the fact that they also have no risk? It's not a case of "pirates have no rick, therefore they should have no reward", or, "Pirates have no reward, therefore they should have no risk" - it's simply "pirates have no risk or reward - both should be increased equally."
2.1) That said, how do you measure reward? I assume you measure pirates' rewards in credits (in which case, yes, most Elite: Dangerous pirates make next to no credits for their efforts). BUT, piracy, buy-n-large, is an entertaining medium of PvP. I'm confident in saying that the reward for piracy for a lot of pirates is they enjoyment factor - interdicting traders, killing players, enjoying being a superior fighter. Again, up for debate, but please acknowledge that to say "Pirates have no reward" is rather subjective.
2.2) A good analogy is this: the main reward for most explorers is getting to explore the galaxy. Credits don't come quick for explorers, compared to other mediums of earning money, but that's okay to explorers - they're content just seeing the sights. In a similar way, the main reward for pirates is (I imagine) getting to hunt down players and pirate them. I suppose you could say that piracy is a great entry into RP!
2.3) If you're still adamant that piracy isn't rewarding in any sense, I'd ask why people are pirates then - because there's a lot of them.
3) I think SkipRat made a mistake. He wasn't saying that pirates = griefers. He was just saying that, I believe, neither of these two demographics have sufficient risks involved in their play style.
- - - Updated - - -
again, you lump a profession with a social interaction. I am afraid doing so makes it impossible to have a reasoned debate. I actually agree with the pirate above. Maybe I should join his band of merry souls. They actually seem to have some sense of code and don't just blindly label.
How weird is that?
I'm not sure what you mean...
Surely if someone engages in pirate activity, they can be labeled a pirate?
- - - Updated - - -
I wasn't lumping them together, calling them the same people. I was saying that neither of those demographics have high risk for their playstyle.
Simply, pirates =/= griefers. Yet neither pirates nor griefers are under enough risk for their chosen playstyle.
Piracy isn't random killing. There is always a purpose. Mostly it's to take a portion of cargo and let the mark live.
It is an amoral activity. There in fact were legalised pirates, called privateers and they had a letter of marquee from the King or Queen of England. Their goal was to hunt down Spanish, French or Dutch ships. The difference there is that they often took the ship into their own fleet, or simply scuttled it and abandoned/ killed the crew.
In ED they just pester you for some cargo and would rather see you drop some and allow you to be on your way. Killing you isn't really the goal. In fact it's just as likely the cargo will be destroyed as not.
Freighting can be some of the single fastest ways to make credits in elite. So to argue it should somehow be above such a thing as piracy is a bit amusing.
However, confusing piracy with random and unreasoned killing does not help the argument that people should be free to cart all many of goodies across a fair chunk of space and do so entirely unhindered. This isn't elite: space trucking simulator. It's space. It's dangerous. Stations murder people for loligaggin.
Piracy is annoying. But it is a valid part of the experience. Please at least seperate piracy from random killing. They are not the same.
It is an amoral activity. There in fact were legalised pirates, called privateers and they had a letter of marquee from the King or Queen of England. Their goal was to hunt down Spanish, French or Dutch ships. The difference there is that they often took the ship into their own fleet, or simply scuttled it and abandoned/ killed the crew.
In ED they just pester you for some cargo and would rather see you drop some and allow you to be on your way. Killing you isn't really the goal. In fact it's just as likely the cargo will be destroyed as not.
Freighting can be some of the single fastest ways to make credits in elite. So to argue it should somehow be above such a thing as piracy is a bit amusing.
However, confusing piracy with random and unreasoned killing does not help the argument that people should be free to cart all many of goodies across a fair chunk of space and do so entirely unhindered. This isn't elite: space trucking simulator. It's space. It's dangerous. Stations murder people for loligaggin.
Piracy is annoying. But it is a valid part of the experience. Please at least seperate piracy from random killing. They are not the same.
Last edited:
I'm not sure what you're addressing here. I just clarified that I'm not saying pirates are the same as mindless killers.
Again, they're different groups of players. But neither of these groups have sufficient risks to face in their play style.
Identity masking. Also, if I really want to satisfy your criteria, then Power Play justifies it quite well.
I don't see what is confusing here.
Just as piracy has no risk is subjective, I thought this was already understood?
Also, killing players isn't desirable, also being a superior fighter isn't completely relevant. Pirates don't want resistance, therefore as long as they know how to disable, threaten traders and escape when at a disadvantage, it is enough.
Killing player creates a bounty, which potentially cuts into profit and create inconvenience for travel. Combat skills come in handy, but number is what really matters to pirates. As a pirate, getting into a "fair" fight is already a mistake.
Explorers make more money than pirates, believe it or not. If you believe in this analogy, then like explorers, pirates shouldn't have any consequences other than the potential of crashing into suns and overheating to death, and that's at the very least.
Piracy isn't popular, using piracy as an excuse to be player killers is, and the probability of the community mixing the two up is quite typical and often.
I certainly hope that is the case.
Last edited: