News Support update - Reiteration of player harassment rules

[Goose4291]

What do you mean deleting valid bug reports?

Since we were able to arrive at Capitol (the Imperial Homeworld in Achenar) I had been submitting tickets to get it changed to conform to the lore (i.e. breathable atmosphere with landmass).

Frontier support either responded advising that 'this was how it was intended to be' or just flat out deleted my reports, right up until some of the 'elite' (pardon the pun) playerbase got involved and suddenly Michael Brookes stepped in vowing to get it fixed.

Hope that helps.

 

[DHMeyer]

Yes, ok.

But my point remains, yes it is taking a while, but the best game you can compare Elite to in terms of development model, is Eve online, it took a while for that one to pan out right as well, trial and error, which yes can be frustrating, but each time they add something that works according to intentions it at least to me has been stunning, yes there have been bugs, and yes griefers and such have had near free reign for quite some time, but there are games here today over 10 years old that still have all these issues and doesn't want to acknowledge it, Frontier has acknowledged and informed on it, that to me says they aren't as bad as the many other games out there. So yeah, it is frustrating, but nothing else has been perfect initially before, we just tend to only remember the good parts, and not how broken games like WoW were initially, heck the only reason it took hold was because it was 'warcraft'

The thing is... It's not that difficult to draw conclusions and learn from mistakes made by others. Why do the players have to deal with the issues that shouldn't be there in the first place if Frontier devs were not naive in their expectations of the players' behaviour? This sort of debate of PVP vs PVE comes back in every game that has strong PVE element (as Elite does) and doesn't put clear boundaries and rules in place. It was to be predicted that it's going to be the case in Elite as well. A game development company that's been in this business for a few decades should really know such things and be less naive.

The whole "rare and meaningful" thing says pretty clearly that the devs tried to make the game based on their own behaviour when gaming and didn't have much experience when it comes to online games. The explanation being that it's a realistic situation to keep full on PVP doesn't speak to me. I can be reasonably sure I will not get mugged or killed when I step outside and go about my business IRL. Also, a chance that hostility of other people will end up in any harm being done to me IRL is even smaller than a chance of encountering hostile or violent behaviour. This is not the case within a gaming environment. If there is PVP, people are bound to use it to attack other players wherever and however they can, which is very different from real life (even if real life is sort of PVP).

 

[xondk]

The thing is... It's not that difficult to draw conclusions and learn from mistakes made by others. Why do the players have to deal with the issues that shouldn't be there in the first place if Frontier devs were not naive in their expectations of the players' behaviour? This sort of debate of PVP vs PVE comes back in every game that has strong PVE element (as Elite does) and doesn't put clear boundaries and rules in place. It was to be predicted that it's going to be the case in Elite as well. A game development company that's been in this business for a few decades should really know such things and be less naive.

The whole "rare and meaningful" thing says pretty clearly that the devs tried to make the game based on their own behaviour when gaming and didn't have much experience when it comes to online games. The explanation being that it's a realistic situation to keep full on PVP doesn't speak to me. I can be reasonably sure I will not get mugged or killed when I step outside and go about my business IRL. Also, a chance that hostility of other people will end up in any harm being done to me IRL is even smaller than a chance of encountering hostile or violent behaviour. This is not the case within a gaming environment. If there is PVP, people are bound to use it to attack other players wherever and however they can, which is very different from real life (even if real life is sort of PVP).

You are not incorrect, in that learn from others mistakes, however given that those solutions they made, was likely with entirely different engines and codes, code which they likely won't share, it is a bit more tricky then just 'making a fix' because there will always be people working to break even those fixes, where in this case they've run wild for a bit, and done a lot of things, and I'm sure FDev has a log of what the problem issues is, this should allow them to do a more comprehensive fix?

As for 'naive' in expecting player behaviour, is it? really?
Why should they expect that they would need to be a parent teaching people basic life stuff? that's why the EULA is there, but as mentioned above, people will find gray areas and work to break stuff.
And as for the whole "If there is pvp" yes, people will fight, but it is actually only a very limited few that will misuse the PvP, unfortunately those few can have a big effect without proper consequences, and that is what is being added, should it have been there from the beginning? yeah, probably, since proper consequences on everything makes a world feel more alive and real. But it is getting fixed, so we will see.

But I really think it is a bit much to shake the whole finger "you should have known better", because really? why aren't we, the other players shaking fingers at the people doing these things?, because they should clearly behave better?, Frontier gave players too much freedom, and certain people took advantage of that, if it was up to me, those people would be banned from open, and that would be that.

 

[DHMeyer]

You are not incorrect, in that learn from others mistakes, however given that those solutions they made, was likely with entirely different engines and codes, code which they likely won't share, it is a bit more tricky then just 'making a fix' because there will always be people working to break even those fixes, where in this case they've run wild for a bit, and done a lot of things, and I'm sure FDev has a log of what the problem issues is, this should allow them to do a more comprehensive fix?

As for 'naive' in expecting player behaviour, is it? really?
Why should they expect that they would need to be a parent teaching people basic life stuff? that's why the EULA is there, but as mentioned above, people will find gray areas and work to break stuff.
And as for the whole "If there is pvp" yes, people will fight, but it is actually only a very limited few that will misuse the PvP, unfortunately those few can have a big effect without proper consequences, and that is what is being added, should it have been there from the beginning? yeah, probably, since proper consequences on everything makes a world feel more alive and real. But it is getting fixed, so we will see.

But I really think it is a bit much to shake the whole finger "you should have known better", because really? why aren't we, the other players shaking fingers at the people doing these things?, because they should clearly behave better?, Frontier gave players too much freedom, and certain people took advantage of that, if it was up to me, those people would be banned from open, and that would be that.

They will need something more radical than a quick fix. If they don't learn it now, they will learn it in a year or two and will have to work on it anyway. Of course, it will be too late then. I believe it's better they start working on solutions sooner rather then later, because once they loose players (and their money), they are unlikely to get them back. Even less likely when competing titles are out, which will happen probably over the next few months.

As for devs being naive, yes, it really is that. People are not going to magically improve their behaviour just because of the EULA. This thread shows that even clarifying the rules is not enough for some people, as you have noticed yourself. So hoping that EULA and clarification will be enough is naive indeed. I'm not expecting them to guide every player and advise them about the understanding of basic concepts of human interaction and that's why they need to put systems in place that will enforce some civility. They really need this to clean up their act.

Exactly, the few bad apples can have a significant influence on this game's reputation. Sweeping the problem under the carpet is not going to solve it. It's going to cost them many PVE players, but of course, it's their game, they can choose whichever way they want it to go.

People are "shaking their fingers" at the bad apples here on the forum. And that's bound to be as successful as the EULA is. So, not at all.
If you suggest players to start hunting down bad apples in game, this also happened to some extent, but it's not the best idea to have players policing the game. One, it's not really possible due to the way instancing works, two, many players have other things to do and enjoy, three, it's not players' job to make the game work properly.
If somebody is interested in policing starting systems, well, kudos to them, but this is not something that will be effective enough. Personally I wouldn't be particularly interested in jumping 300+ Ly every day in a PVP / combat rigged ship with a jump range of 15Ly and then jumping back to my home system to fund these charity activities. I want to have fun and play my game, not fix things for Frontier.
And that is if I was able to find the offenders there, which I may not be able to do. Because: how do I know who the offenders are? And also: how do I find them if the game doesn't put me in the same instance?

 

[unload]

honestly, psycho griefing (read: killing defenseless, "worthless" noobies just to ruin their fun) is as old as online gaming. most of the griefers use excuses like "duh, the game is broken, therefore we show how broken it is" although this THE most stupid excuse. so yes, they should ALWAYS expect such behavior. why? because there are, mostly, no RL consequences. the ingame consequences, on the other hand, are hard to balance, easy to exploit or too tame (what's a 1 million fine to a player who owns some billions?) in regards of a cut throat galaxy. however, other games still make it a lot more of a hassle to grief compared to elite. I actually like the system eve has in place (high sec sectors enforced by vicious KI and low sec sectors where anything goes). maybe add some pirating function. for example, after a successful interdiction, you get prompted "drop cargo or fight". if you choose to drop, you're "free to go" or at least get a significant head start for waking away, if you choose to fight, well, you fight (just one idea)

 

[Dave G]

I think, as a lot of people have said, griefing is just a role that people play in the game, as in the real world, people do this as well.

The game itself needs to attempt to make griefing a less viable role if we need to not necessarily stop it, but at least reduce it. The mechanics can be built into the game to make the consequences of a large bounties more substantial (e.g. remember old Elite with the swarm of Vipers out of a station). So large bounties should attract bigger responses from defence forces and larger wings of bounty hunters, etc. We would obviously need to differentiate from the pirates, who role-play a different approach which may also incur bounties.

Getting insurance for your ship should be more difficult, or the insurance cost should increase the more bounties you incur. The chance of actually losing your ship because of this behaviour may make people think twice.

Let the griefers live in the Anarchy systems without restrictions, the additional benefit would be Anarchies would be dangerous for the rest of us. If they venture out of the Anarchy systems, then they expect more action from the law-abiding factions.

Not sure if any of this is achievable, but hey, a few thoughts.

 

[=71st=RuSh]

So basically, you are lowering your pants for people that are unable to assume the fact that they can be killed by other players. You should basically rename the game Elite: Mostly Harmless, that's the least you can do seing on how it's turning right now, but hey, all big game devs always turn their backs to the minority of players to listen to the majority of crying care bears.

There is no problem for me to be killed by another player ... if this player assume what he is doing and become a criminal wanted in many systems for a while (months not days!), the real problem is that many of those "playerkillers" later suicide in a sidewinder to reborn clean like a butterfly!

 

[unload]

I think, as a lot of people have said, griefing is just a role that people play in the game, as in the real world, people do this as well.

and I still think that's just a poor excuse. no, in the real world, even in "low security sectors" ( ) if you run around randomly shooting people just to mess with them (or, since they are dead, their families), you gonna get stopped sooner or later. permanently stopped if you catch my drift. besides, yes, people do griefe, but we call them trolls and they live in comment sections without doing any real damage

as rush said. make griefing something you want to think twice about. or add some mechanic like I said before "drop or fight". just because it's a dangerous galaxy doesn't mean it's a galaxy filled to the brimming with mass murderers ^^

 

[EdzUp]

As I have said before harassing players only harms the game your playing or looking on the forum too.

In game I would do a Atan2 distance check from the nearest hi grade police system if the system in question is very near then the police response is harsh and almost instant. However the further out you get the slower and less severe the response gets. This not only will make capital systems immensely safe havens and maybe starter systems could have a police garison but also will force pirates to the fringes or space where it belongs. Anarchy systems are a exception to this rule as anything goes in there. This also does not stop player or npc pirates braving the storm and trying to pirate nearer to the garison and could make it more lucrative if they did as safer areas mean traders would carry higher priced cargoes. As always illegal activity isn't without risk

 

[Diettinger]

I don't like it. Anything should go in Open. If PvP isn't your thing, you can go solo or join a private group and invite your friends. "Repeatedly targeting the same person" is just another way to say "hunting".

This whole thing is stupid and the devs have lost my respect. They made two modes of gameplay to avoid PvP and they still cave to the carebears when people PvP in the PvP mode.

The entirety of this issue is wrapped up in the analogy to that of 'freedom of speech.' You can pretty much say anything you like as long as it doesn't threaten or incite violence towards others or cause undue harm. It is essentially the classic saying 'You can't shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater."

In-game you can do pretty much what you like but you can't persistently and with willful intent instigate or make malicious conduct towards other players.

 

[Dave G]

As I have said before harassing players only harms the game your playing or looking on the forum too.

In game I would do a Atan2 distance check from the nearest hi grade police system if the system in question is very near then the police response is harsh and almost instant. However the further out you get the slower and less severe the response gets. This not only will make capital systems immensely safe havens and maybe starter systems could have a police garison but also will force pirates to the fringes or space where it belongs. Anarchy systems are a exception to this rule as anything goes in there. This also does not stop player or npc pirates braving the storm and trying to pirate nearer to the garison and could make it more lucrative if they did as safer areas mean traders would carry higher priced cargoes. As always illegal activity isn't without risk

Agreed, essentially the only thing that can attempt to govern griefing is the game itself. I like the idea of the police response being more immediate the further into the populated bubble you are. That would make the border worlds and frontiers the more dangerous places to be (as well as anarchies), and that seems a more realistic scenario to me. These responses should be at a level that would threaten a player. Sending a single viper to take out a griefer in an anaconda is nonsense. Sending a wing of 6-8 vipers would challenge the player, and potentially force him to move on, if the interdictions were coming thick and fast. Essentially the game itself would be interrupting the griefing playing-style, in the same way griefers interrupt other player's playing-style.

I also agree, that the pirates out there would welcome some more risk vs reward options for their role in the game.

 

[unload]

Agreed, essentially the only thing that can attempt to govern griefing is the game itself. I like the idea of the police response being more immediate the further into the populated bubble you are. That would make the border worlds and frontiers the more dangerous places to be (as well as anarchies), and that seems a more realistic scenario to me. These responses should be at a level that would threaten a player. Sending a single viper to take out a griefer in an anaconda is nonsense. Sending a wing of 6-8 vipers would challenge the player, and potentially force him to move on, if the interdictions were coming thick and fast. Essentially the game itself would be interrupting the griefing playing-style, in the same way griefers interrupt other player's playing-style.

I also agree, that the pirates out there would welcome some more risk vs reward options for their role in the game.

absolutely agree, but it requires some difficult balancing....and I guess you need to change the interdiction mechanic too. it's about prevention, not AI revenge.

 

[kpikid]

I have already replied to this thread, but I do have some very important questions that relates to the title of the game.

How do we get to Elite status?

As memory serves the Elite rank was primarily obtained by ship to ship combat. Are we supposed to get to Elite status by fighting against NPCs?

If so why do we have a PVE mode? Should the game be played Solo, and then we can have the stand alone server facility as described in the original backer promotion?

After reading all these replies, I am really confused now. Am I allowed to attack other players in the server or not?

While I am asking.... Where are all the NPC Feds? Shouldn't they interdict and kill you if you have a high illegal kill ratio?

The devs did a great job of copying the Milky Way, can they not create a robocop drone to seek out and destroy these types of offenders in the game?

It would make the game that much more real.

 

[L.S Algir]

Seriously , all this discussion seems to reach a dead end. My humble opinion on this point is : there can not be an harrassment situation in this game , simply because the name and simulation model of this game is made so criminality is part of the deal without concession .
Let see the issues as stated : complaining against Player killers that don't stop chasing and destroying you for no reason and having so much ways to remain clean .
Well , on the other hand , PVP here has exactly the same issues than PVE : non spreading criminal state , easy criminal state cleaning via sidewinder suicide, underpowered police response to crime except nearby stations , and so on....
But this is known ! So stop complaining. I don't play in open if i don't want to be ganked. I go private or solo . If i go open , then i take and accept the risk of beeing under threat from other players and that's part of the deal , as in real life.
By the way , even NPC use harrasment ( have you ever beeing chased all your way long towards your destination by cheated teleporting npc pirate that can pop up everytime you go in normal space , just because they interdicted you once ? is that not harrassment as well ?)

FD made 3 modes , that's not for nothing. The system in place is criminal friendly due to apparent difficulties from in game authorities to enforce the law (that's not a critic , but a state , and seeing how hard it is for IRL cops to protect everyone , try to put this in a galaxy....). That's why it's Elite Dangerous.

Before that game , i've played EVE online , and there , you had no choice but PVP all the time. And even in high security system you could get ganked by pirate players swarms , or player killer knowing the tips and tricks to bypass security response.
In ED , you've got modes to protect you , except from NPC. Use them. Going in the open mode is taking into account you can meet bad cruel persons , who make fun of your distress. Well , it's life....

Perhaps FD may revamp the security system a bit , but don't make a fool of yourself :the joy of player killer , is to use every tricks he could find to harass others under the nose of security. And even if an ingame financial consequence is put in place , don't expect much. these people know how to raise funds fast to follow their plans.

And if you want to stick to open , form wings , be prepared , don't stay as a prey and use your fangs.

 

[Jack Schitt]

As memory serves the Elite rank was primarily obtained by ship to ship combat. Are we supposed to get to Elite status by fighting against NPCs?

Unless something's changed, AFAIK you can only get to Elite by fighting NPCs. PvP kills do not count towards rating progression. One of FD's rare attempts to dissuade people from non-contextual PvP through game design, and we can all see how well that worked out.

Your other points are commonly raised, but rarely addressed. There is supposedly a big Crime and Punishment revamp coming in a later Season 2 update (with some stuff filtering down to the 1.x core game). I can't remember if it's specifically 2.1 that the changes are pencilled in for, but these things tend to be ongoing anyway so expect tweaks throughout the season.

Whether they're sensible changes, let alone effective changes, remains to be seen. FD are playing their cards very close to their chests at the moment. But minor tweaks aside, the run from 2.0 to 2.1 will be the longest the game has gone with no major updates so whatever is coming needs to be significant IMO. Simply layering what we know about The Engineers on top of the currently broken mechanics won't work, and runs the risk of turning The Engineers into little more than a race for PvP meta, as initially happened with some custom Powerplay weapons.

 

[LoneKharnivore]

That's why it's Elite Dangerous.

No, it isn't. So tired of this... 'Dangerous' is the new level required for acceptance to the PF. Nothing to do with the danger of the universe.

 

[unload]

And if you want to stick to open , form wings , be prepared , don't stay as a prey and use your fangs.

since your main argument is "go private or expect to be harassed", people did go private for the sole purpose of not getting engaged in PVP and it still got forced upon them (harassment, as plain as day). people dont want the game to be easier, they want a way to play with others without the constant threat of some bored, bullied in school maniac who gains joy only by ruining the fun for others.

as you said, pecuniary consequences wont stop the determined murderer, but it still slows em down. even the best speed grinding griefer will think twice about harassing a complete noob (who might not even realize it's a player interdicting him) with a potential setback of a lot of cash, just so he could kill a sidey

but penalties alone wont stop griefing. if you really want to stop it, you'd need to adapt the mechanics too in some way. I still like my "drop or fight" idea. this way, you'd even force emergent role playing. actually, it would be less role "playing" and more of a REAL pirate/trader situation since both parties need to be careful and both want to have a "gain" (the trader not losing everything/dying and the pirate getting as much as possible without fight) did I overlook something? I think this would solve/prevent griefing in many situations. this, combined with low sec outer rim sectors, having high value goods, and inner high sec sectors to sell those goods to.

 

[frostypaw]

But this is known ! So stop complaining. I don't play in open if i don't want to be ganked. I go private or solo . If i go open , then i take and accept the risk of beeing under threat from other players and that's part of the deal , as in real life.

If you're a forum user.

Imagine how many folk don't even know this is here? Give it a shot and get slaughtered by some big strong man in a big ship with tonnes of experience.... and again and again - then they go to solo and never come back.

It's just ridiculous. You're spoiling the game for yourself and everyone else and damaging the word-of-mouth publicity that Elite gets. To not play in open was the first thing I was told independently by three different unconnected people! Purposefully hunting *players* rather than ships is abusing the ability to tell the difference - I really think Frontier should strip that feature immediately. It's a one-shot fix to a lot of how these abusive players operate and no one loses anything from the game.

People who want to play EVE should go play EVE. Stop trying to change a perfectly good game into something else.

 

[L.S Algir]

Ok , I see and understand your points. I was perhaps a bit unclear in my opinion .

First of all , I left EVE just because it was not fit for me ( or the contrary ) and the last thing i want is an EVE mechanic to come into E.D, be sure of that.

I fully understand the point of enjoying open mode for beeing among others , playing as a part of the whole thing rather than beeing stuck in a corner , alone with NPC . But the fact is that , whatever you do , it's very very difficult to find the perfect way of striking player killers efficiently without risking to penalyse those who kills , let say , in a more honourable way.Because it will be a player's words vs another player's words. I know that there is a difference between beeing ganked once , and beeing killed over and over by the same guy , but seen from the dev after a complaint , the line is very thin. This can lead also to prevent every one to kill freely accordingly to their feeling, making the game flat and boring.

What i wanted to focus on , is that : first of all , let be honest . Is there so many harrassers is the game ? I rather find more "classic" pvp feeling than them. But fine , only one can ruin your experience . So second point: is this too much a deal then to reconnect via private or solo the time the "bad guy" get bored ?
You want to play with people , frankly the private solution is a perfectly viable one . I play a big part of the time this way . I don't want people to get stuck to that because open becomes not viable anymore , but it's a good solution to let the storm pass in case of.

So far there is nothing ingame that allows to tell and judge the good or bad behavior of a player . Killing over and over same guy ? Yes and if I say that's because he is of the oposite faction regarding my Role Playing way of thinking : who can tell if i am wrong or right. That is the real mess. To many guys hide behind RP to justify their harrassing actions; but who can blame them as nothing can prove honestly that it's not true.

The only solution i see to this problem , which once again can be bypassed smoothly by going in the other modes if needed , is to force players to endorse a faction or a power (other than power play) in a way than RP coul'd be obvious ( i don't know if i am very clear there ). Today we are all from the Federation of pilots : all at the same level without any allegiance except power play. It's a free for all arena . Your ranks and reputations are only here for the cosmectic thing or to gain access to missions or items.
If our alignement to a side or an other or toward no one had a real meaning , with this labeled on your CMDR Id , it would solve a part of the problem.

But so far , yes , the game is made in a way that gives open mode a very dangerous state regarding the lack of consequences in non stoping criminal behavior. And as many "Mmo" , pvp world brings its bunch of maniac Pks. But today , complaining for harassment is a dangerous way of dealing things , cause it could lead to the contrary giving the lack of "proves" of bad or justified behavior, whereas private and solo can bring a solution to make the annoying pk go away.

 

[Soliluna]

No, it isn't. So tired of this... 'Dangerous' is the new level required for acceptance to the PF. Nothing to do with the danger of the universe.

Source of it being confirmed that is why it is called Elite: Dangerous?