Elite Babysitter...

[Phaedra]

If a player was not broadcasting that they were human, why (reasonably) should the game apply any penalty to another player for attacking the first? Always broadcasting that the pilots of ships are human simply carries out PKers first cast target selection process for them.

I agree, however, no-one would confirm that this was what was intended and tried, in fact, to suggest that the discussion should be restricted to idents and not include the penalties for attacking a player. It seems that reason may have taken a backseat in the moral panic of the "war on griefing".

As for "always broadcasting", I see no reason why that should be implemented. I have consistently said I would support player ID only being known after a scan. Since this is required in any case for most legitimate reasons to attack (it isn't required for piracy, but any sensible pirate would scan for cargo before declaring piracy), it would protect players that have no intention of PvP, whilst ensuring that players will not be lit up like a beacon as potential targets for ganking.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

Step by step, each of the measures being taken (grouping mechanisms, ignore feature, the on/off PC-NPC transmitter and now the almost universal outcry for policing of bad behavior I'm seeing dominating the DDF discussion) is reasonable and logical. But as a whole it's taking the 'Dangerous' out of Elite Dangerous.

It seems the playerbase wants every possible contingency of having to deal with people they find disagreeable dealt with.

I think this might be a problem with our society in general, we try to protect ourselves and our children too much from hurtful situations that they end up far too sheltered.

But this continual step by step layer of protection after layer of protection surrounding Elite Dangerous's systems and playerbase just seems ridiculous

Each step in and of itself isn't necessarily wrong, people decry the British Nanny State, yet that seems to be what we're wanting from Elite 'Dangerous' and Frontier.

Protect us from the bad people out there!

For me the nanny state is not about protecting citizens from other antisocial people. That isn't nannying it is just common sense IMO. I think it is more about when the government tries to protect us from ourselves, by stopping doing things we enjoy, or spoiling thing we have been doing for years on the off chance a Darwin award contender messes up.

IMO the best way to discourage cheating and bad behaviour is either permbans on the account or at least all of them put in their own instace .
If that happens it should go a long way to stopping it. Bad behavior unlike cheating is possibly subjective however...... but active cheating isn't, they are the guys ruining online games and offer nothing positive to the ED universe so should be account banned.

Can't people just form a private group when going into the dangerous areas so the pirates can never see them?

I personally don't think a pirate counts in this. A pirate is a valid game mechanic and should be not blocked so easily, a cheater or griefer is not IMO.

 

[Viajero]

Of course, the galaxy is enormous....

However, that does not mean that the grouping mechanic should be compromised - it's there for a reason.

Now, now, dont get space greedy mate!

The current DDF solution alienates a part of the community that prefers more PVP freedom, but the Universe will be big enough for all of us me thinks.

All players and play styles could have the chance to roam through innumerable systems and have plenty of room to explore and do things in those within their preferred play style (much more than one could do in a lifetime even) without having to alienate anyone.

I understand ED' s original philosophy and lone wolf orientation but ED vast size gives us now a chance to actually encompass all styles realistically and beat other games to it.

 

[Robert Maynard]

The reason is obvious! Yes but there is no reason either to constraint all players to it when there is enough room around. The current DDF solution alienates a part of the community that prefers more PVP freedom.

The Universe will be enough for all of us me thinks. And all play styles will have the chace to roam anywhere they like and have plenty of room to explore and do as they like within their preferred play style.

Freedom for PvP players (using your mechanic) denies freedom for players who may not wish to partake in PvP with strangers and have removed themselves to a private group.

Your argument seems to be a bit of a rehash of "all players should be in the all group" argument.

 

[JeffRyan]

IMO the best way to discourage cheating and bad behaviour is either permbans on the account or at least all of them put in their own instace .
If that happens it should go a long way to stopping it. Bad behavior unlike cheating is possibly subjective however...... but that active cheating isn't, that are the guys ruining online games

I don't disagree at all. I'm all for banning cheaters (no 3 strikes, no warning, you're caught cheating, you're out). My problem with policing bad behavior is it is subjective.

I'm not particularly attacking any of the mechanisms in place (or planned) individually (although I do have a problem with the IDENT system). But it's the overall picture I'm seeing that's worrying me.

 

[Phaedra]

The reason is obvious! Yes but there is no reason either to constraint all players to it when there is enough room around.

The current DDF solution alienates a part of the community that prefers more PVP freedom, and the Universe will be big enough for all of us me thinks.
QUOTE]

System events provide reason for players to concentrate in one place and I'm sure many of those will have a PvP focus.

 

[Patrick_68000]

The majority of troublemakers, will come from new generations who do not know Elite and have no particular respect for the history of this game. They will not seek to participate in a coherent galaxy and respectful of the game, for to make of the galaxy Elite, a large space dangerous but intelligent and attractive. For these reasons, the game must be monitored very closely by Frontier

 

[Machival]

So we're discussing how we handle cheating and bad behavior in the DDF and it's becoming clear to me that EVE Online is dominating the development of the social side of ED.

Step by step, each of the measures being taken (grouping mechanisms, ignore feature, the on/off PC-NPC transmitter and now the almost universal outcry for policing of bad behavior I'm seeing dominating the DDF discussion) is reasonable and logical. But as a whole it's taking the 'Dangerous' out of Elite Dangerous.

It seems the playerbase wants every possible contingency of having to deal with people they find disagreeable dealt with.

I think this might be a problem with our society in general, we try to protect ourselves and our children too much from hurtful situations that they end up far too sheltered.

Ironically I totally disagree with griefing, I'm a fervant anti-griefer on EVE and I believe that people should strive to be decent human beings all of the time and apologise for it when they fail.

But this continual step by step layer of protection after layer of protection surrounding Elite Dangerous's systems and playerbase just seems ridiculous

This DDF topic is far from over and if policing is instituted I don't necessarily disagree with it, but that isn't the point...

Each step in and of itself isn't necessarily wrong, people decry the British Nanny State, yet that seems to be what we're wanting from Elite 'Dangerous' and Frontier.

Protect us from the bad people out there!

PS. This /isn't/ an attack or a sideswipe at the current DDF proposal either, although I've argued against policing bad behavior I'm not actually that bothered, it's more a problem I have with the mindset I'm seeing dominate as a sociological reaction.

Honestly, I don't think what you're seeing is so much a desire for a nanny ruleset but an outgrowth of a desire for a more single-player or jolly cooperation oriented experience. One of the obvious facts for both Elite Dangerous and Star Citizen (in which the same phenomenon can be witnessed) is that both of their developers have been questioned on and have promised to deliver some form of single-player open-world experience. ED has it's single-player offline mode that's been promised and Star Citizen has it's talk of private servers. For Massively multiplayer online open-world space sims (M²O²SS), this seems an unusual thing for consumers to demand and for developers to promise to deliver on, but it makes sense when you consider that both products are promising on delivering modern versions of classic single-player games, with integrated multiplayer. A good chunk of the consumer base for both games can be assumed to be the sort of person who would really be just dandy with a single player Elite Dangerous or Star Citizen, and is wary of multiplayer and may feel that their stuck on the multiplayer ride. (For both games it's been suggested that the experience of the open-world is hampered if you're not engaging in the multiplayer component) These sorts are worried that what they want out of these games will be damaged by the multiplayer component, that this new x-factor is going to spill egg in their avatar hair and ruin a part of the experience. It's a natural concern, especially in the case of star citizen, where last I checked it was still uncertain what ships could actually be effectively flown by one pilot.

The concern about bad players and attempts to police them is simply an outgrowth of this. An NPC is a predictable, reliable beast. You can count on them to behave according to a system of rules laid out in the program and do nothing more. A player is not a predictable, reliable beast. It may travel to the ends of the earth to harass you, endangering you even in those places where you are immune to the npcs. It might appear or leave when npcs are reliably present or absent, and they engage in behaviors that npcs just don't engage in, such as intentional ramming. Compared to the npcs, the players are unfair, cavalier, random, and potentially much more dangerous. For the single-player minded, other players are the personification of that x-factor that can ruin some part of the game for them.

There's also players coming to Elite Dangerous who have an mmo experience drawn more from games like SWG, WoW, and others rather than from games like EVE, wherein the ability to engage in player vs. player is in some way limited. SWG and WoW tie pvp to their faction system for instance, and a blood elf warlock in Orgrimmar never has to worry that the level 70 troll is going to attack him out of the blue. The Troll simply can't take that action, although said blood elf might have to worry about an Alliance player whose strayed a bit far from home. For these sorts, everyone being able to attack them must seem strange and dangerous, and a natural desire exists to cultivate options more conducive of their usual method of play. This is more of a preference for the safety of familiarity than a distaste for risk.

 

[Viajero]

Freedom for PvP players (using your mechanic) denies freedom for players who may not wish to partake in PvP with strangers and have removed themselves to a private group.

Your argument seems to be a bit of a rehash of "all players should be in the all group" argument.

Not really no. Not sure I am explaining myself very clear.

The key to the argument is the vastness of space. There is room for all play styles.

In high security all DDF rules for privacy and ignores apply as intended and you d like. I.e. no one is taking anything from you or changing a comma from the DDF ruleset.

In low security systems you can have all groups and friends etc, just no privacy or ignores.

With 400 billions stars there is no need to apply a single rule set to the whole galaxy because no one will be able to visit it all in a life time.

All players and play styles could have the chance to roam through innumerable systems and have plenty of room to explore and do things in those within their preferred play style (much more than one could do in a lifetime even) without having to alienate anyone.

 

[Robert Maynard]

In low security systems you can have all groups and friends etc, just no privacy or ignores.

This is the portion of your argument that appears to deny groups, solo players and players who have ignored other players the freedom to play as they want - it effectively makes your low security zones enforced "everyone in the All Group" areas.

 

[tooterfish]

Griefing is cheating, or abusing gameplay mechanics to harass other players.

Have we now reclassified piracy as griefing? If so, that is extremely... troubling.

There should be a distinction between being anti-social as a player, and being anti-social as a character within the context of the game.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Griefing is cheating, or abusing gameplay mechanics to harass other players.

Have we now reclassified piracy as griefing? If so, that is extremely... troubling.

There should be a distinction between being anti-social as a player, and being anti-social as a character within the context of the game.

No - however piracy should follows the in-game forms and should not result in the destruction of the target ship. Ship destruction is murder, not piracy.

 

[mattyboy1509]

Im still confused here about whats so wrong with the policing model its how this world works and seems intuitive to me. Cheaters yes should be banned because they break the system but with space being so vast to explore on your own should potentially risky though with so many places to go the griefers would have a job covering all bases. And secure space could be expanded with the help of pilots clearing out systems of pirates and bringing law and order as in theory it could operate the other way round. And if you want to fight real people in an honest engagement join the army my son or should that be navy !
And yes you may get the odd person jetting in trying to blow up people at space stations but then que 12 vipers and perhaps some form of drive suppressant fun but ultimately expensive and after a while boring.

 

[tooterfish]

No - however piracy should follows the in-game forms and should not result in the destruction of the target ship. Ship destruction is murder, not piracy.

Right, I'm aware of the distinction. But murder is still legitimate within the context of the game.

If a pirate chooses to murder their prey, then by all means let the in game penalties reflect that (higher bounties, more serious response from authorities, more "eager" NPC bounty hunters), but don't label them griefers. That's just silly.

And what of the PC bounty hunter and assassin? Murder isn't just incidental to them, it's their stock in trade.

Piracy and murder have always been a part of the Elite universe. Don't give players special protections just because some of them find PvP ikky.

 

[Phaedra]

Im still confused here about whats so wrong with the policing model its how this world works and seems intuitive to me. Cheaters yes should be banned because they break the system but with space being so vast to explore on your own should potentially risky though with so many places to go the griefers would have a job covering all bases. And secure space could be expanded with the help of pilots clearing out systems of pirates and bringing law and order as in theory it could operate the other way round. And if you want to fight real people in an honest engagement join the army my son or should that be navy !

I don't think there is anything wrong with the policing model set out in the DDA. The issue seems to be that without the model ever having been implemented and tested some people in the DDF are demanding wholesale changes.

 

[Machival]

Right, I'm aware of the distinction. But murder is still legitimate within the context of the game.

If a pirate chooses to murder their prey, then by all means let the in game penalties reflect that (higher bounties, more serious response from authorities, more "eager" NPC bounty hunters), but don't label them griefers. That's just silly.

Piracy and murder have always been a part of the Elite universe. Don't give players special protections just because some find PvP ikky.

I think the real issue for many is that a player will murder when and where npcs won't.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Right, I'm aware of the distinction. But murder is still legitimate within the context of the game.

If a pirate chooses to murder their prey, then by all means let the in game penalties reflect that (higher bounties, more serious response from authorities, more "eager" NPC bounty hunters), but don't label them griefers. That's just silly.

And what of the PC bounty hunter and assassin? Murder isn't just incidental to them, it's their stock in trade.

Piracy and murder have always been a part of the Elite universe. Don't give players special protections just because some of them find PvP ikky.

Indeed, bounty hunters will murder with impunity as long as their marks have bounties and assassins will have to roll with the bounties that they incur.

Can you elaborate on your last sentence? What protections are you referring to?

 

[tooterfish]

I'm talking generally, not specifics.

 

[JeffRyan]

I don't think there is anything wrong with the policing model set out in the DDA. The issue seems to be that without the model ever having been implemented and tested some people in the DDF are demanding wholesale changes.

This isn't about 'in-character' actions, piracy, murder, whatnot, it's about protection from anti-social behavior, griefing, insulting, bullying and whatnot.

And for me that isn't Frontier's job or responsibility.

 

[Spook]

Eve security systems isn't in my opinion the way to go. It doesn't work there why would it work here?

To clarify when I say it doesn't work, in my time of playing you had 90 to 95 percent of the player base cooped up in high sec, a very few players hanging around in low sec and the old empires in Nul - which even in those days was becoming more and more of a closed shop as all the spying/backstabbing and intrigue began to take it's toll. (not played for a couple of years so CCP may well have fixed it.)

I know this is probably not what the OP want's to hear but as offence/griefing is taken on a personal level then I honestly think that as far as possible the tools to deal with it need to devolved to individuals.

This will have impact on gameplay - there's a lot of concern that players will adopt easy mode, but I honestly say so what. There's no way to win Elite, no endgame and so if someone want's to wall themselves off and have a more casual experience then fine.

I've said it before the always on - hardcore gank anyone any time is actually not the most popular play style. It is however supported by a minority, all be it the most vocal and passionate minority. Initially it sounds great, sounds reasonable, but then, as in Alpha when presented with the reality of it people suddenly see the darker side and either reach for the exit button or call for methods to modify the way they interact with others. Either ED loses players or it allows people to play in the way they want.