Griefers and Elite's Emerging Karma System

[Meric]

What I don't understand is why they make it so complicated...

If they want to punish combat loggers, analyse the disconnections and give out automatic shadow bans.

If they want people to not shoot up newbies, well that's already illegal. You just need to make sure people don't get away with it consistently in safe systems.

1) Have a police response that scales properly with bounty and security rating. If you are in a safe system with a high bounty you get pestered constantly until you die or leave.

2) Issue Pilots Federation bounties for attacking and murdering fellow players. Perfectly consitent, the pilots federation dosen't want you killing its members. Pilots federation bounties would be valid in any civilised system.

3) Pilots Federation covers our insurance right? You could add the bounty to the rebuy cost to reduce exploits.

These simple changes would be trivial to implement... they already took superpower bounties out. They would target a single antisocial behaviour in a way that could be predictability tuned.

 

[playfuldreamer]

The best part of this whole discussion is being able to pick out the "psychopaths" from the "carebears."

Really, I don't understand why anyone would argue against in-game consequences for in-game actions, unless there were bias or ulterior motive at play. When you commit a crime in-game, you should expect there to be in-game consequences. It's the same logic some in the "psychopath" camp use when they say things like: "If you don't want to be shot in Open, don't play in Open." So, to those worried about the institution of a karma system: "If you don't want to risk the consequences of being a murderous goon, don't be a murderous goon."

This is the most sensible and well-constructed design philosophy I've seen from Sandro yet. And bless the Keeper of the Loach for actually giving us his thought process for once, and including us in the discussion. The last thing we need to do is discourage this kind of interaction from FDEV by shutting it down by turning up our noses.

I'm also not surprised, at all, to see a particular name among the cries of worry...

 

[Crank Larson]

Really, I don't understand why anyone would argue against in-game consequences for in-game actions, unless there were bias or ulterior motive at play. When you commit a crime in-game, you should expect there to be in-game consequences.

I agree. But I don't agree that this requires a Karma system at all. Why add a whole new system, that will no doubt have bugs and exploits to begin with, when existing game mechanics can simply be tuned to discourage the antisocial behaviour?

 

[Stealthie]

I agree. But I don't agree that this requires a Karma system at all. Why add a whole new system, that will no doubt have bugs and exploits to begin with, when existing game mechanics can simply be tuned to discourage the antisocial behaviour?

I'd have to agree with this TBH.

The whole idea of some kind of vague, unspecific, "karma" system seems like a recipe for more confusion and frustration to me.

Just make high-security systems places where you'd have to either flee or be destroyed if you destroy another ship, medium-security systems might need dialling-up a little bit are and low/no-security systems should be scary, lawless places where there are opportunities to do all sorts of terrible things.
You pick your AO and your travel plans on the basis of what you think you can handle.

 

[yodajedifishmaster]

and so we get down to the name calling of carebears/grieferpsychos.

i just want to point out at this point, that griefing is low frequency but VERY high profile when it happens and rumours make it seem worse than it is. but especially when people hang around starter areas to do it to new players. this game is hard enough when you start (i still remember earning my way from sidey to cobra mk iii without using any nav beacon exploits - it took a long time at least 80 hours and even then i had to use the cobra to earn the money to finish outfitting it. then earn my asp exx took much longer). if you throw in people taking advantage of new players in sidewinders to get easy commander kills, the new player imo is 90% likely to just quit - if not the first time then after a few since they are not making any progress at all, and have no credits. 10% will stop playing and read the forums searching for griefers. and a few either dont pick open at all (like me) because we read the forums first, or they go to solo - and its then random if they ever go back to groups even - since griefers have been known to invade groups like mobius to kill commanders until banned, and have set up groups trying to trick people to joining THINKING they are joining PvE group when in fact they are being lured into an ambush.

low frequency but HIGH visibility. it puts off new players, makes some quit and uninstall the game and not buy the season pass or ever come back. others go to solo and never come out. and a few lucky ones manage to 'git gud' and try open again later and find they are so far off the beaten track there are not griefers everywhere except at CG and starter systems and founders world.

but the high visibilty of it which one side doesnt understand the harm they do because they just see it as funny not as wrecking someone elses hours of gameplay. death in this game is a MAJOR set back if you are not super rich with more rebuys than you can count without a mainframe. comparisons with WoW dont hold up - the repair cost of your armour in that game is no way comparable to the loss of a ship and cargor in elite. and you can set your pvp flag off and then people have to ask you to attack you. nothing like that in elite.

i see issues with the karma system. i had VERY flaky internet for several months lately and randomly it would fade out - and i wouldnt know until the game said it lost connection. and it happened a lot. under karma system this might happen in combat with an npc a few times in the bubble and suddenly i got a lot of issues not of my making. so do i sue my isp for the cost of a new game? or just quit playing until the isp gets its together?

something needs to be done maybe to force new players into solo for a set period - maybe make the starter system a starter area. once you get outside of a set range from the start system (maybe 5 jumps away in any direction) you dock and get a notification you can now choose to go to main menu and join open. that will at least make it harder on the griefers to find newbies - they will be spread out in a number of places by the time they hit 'open' space with any luck. i think that would solve many of the problems of griefing, or rather will minimise their effect, make them a bit rarer and less high profile.

 

[Mordredd]

This past week has seen a substantive debate in the media and in-house over the sabotage/success of the Salome event, plus related discussions about the griefing of pilots in starter systems and community events.

Sandro Sarmmarco's (comments on a potential karma system)[https://www.reddit.com/r/EliteDangerous/comments/698b36/sandro_sammarco_lead_designer_talks_about/] to address crime and punishment in Elite is therefore interestingly timed. His thoughts on longitudinally tracking the behaviour of all pilots, scaling the consequences for anti-social behaviour, and perhaps incentivizing pro-social behaviour and self-policing are the core of what he is considering. So too is finding ways to address karma without shutting down pvp.

The wisdom of these ideas lays in focusing on behaviour that impacts others, and not the (un)stated intentions of those involved. Intentions are extremely difficult to pin down online. Since intentions and actions go hand-in-hand when trying to understand culpability, however, this also makes a behaviour based karma system difficult to implement. Especially so in a sandbox universe like Elite. Kudos to Frontier for grappling with these complexities up front.

As we debate the utility of a karma system for crime and punishment, lets remember what real-life research says about those who engage in griefing. This may give us a better sense of whether a karma system would be good for Elite.

For the purpose of this note, a griefer is (a person who harasses or deliberately provokes other players or members in order to spoil their enjoyment)[https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/griefer]. Activities pertaining to Elite include targeting new players for destruction, interfering with community events, using combat zones to score easy kills of cmdrs, and the like. Griefers claim theirs is a valid play-style, introduces 'emergent content', and 'educates' players on proper preparation and game-play.

This does not match up with what the research tells us about griefers.

Decades of research shows no causal effect between virtual and real world violence per se. The research is increasingly clear, however, that folks with anti-social traits are drawn to griefing in online, multi-player games. The traits that characterize griefers are the dark tetrad of Machiavellianism, narcissism, psychopathology, and sadism. Basically a subset of players engage in griefing for malicious reasons. The anonymity of online interaction also provides them safety from consequences, unless anti-griefing policies and practices are implemented.

Does this mean everyone who griefs is an everyday sadist? No. There are personality tests for the dark tetrad, and one cannot say a priori that all griefers are anti-social or ill. But it does mean that a good proportion of griefers are malevolent, and likely drawn to the current mechanics of Elite because it allows them to grief without consequence.

It is also important to distinguish pvpers from griefers. Pvpers enjoy the combat side of things, and often the role-play of activities like "piracy". The overarching narrative of a game defines the roles that players might adopt. Griefers are motivated by anti-social urges irrespective of narrative framing, and introduce an unhealthy element in-game.

As someone who enjoys pvp and has led a largish organization dedicated to it, I do not want to see the end of pvp in Elite. At the same time, the research suggests there is good reason to worry about the impact of griefers on the Elite community, particularly those new to us.

Whatever karma system that Frontier designs should keep the above elements in mind, and do what it can to discourage griefing.

well written post OP <salutes>

I'm down for a karma based system so mark me down as optimistic. We dont have any solid details beyond some spitballing so we cant get stuck into the final outcome yet (oh but we will in time i'm sure). I'm down for real space-sim open world pvp (i.e. piracy vs players, bounty hunting on naughty players, big civil war/power play driven kickups), none of this needs or requires wanton butchery of sidewinders with learner plates on. Eve actually freezes youre account if you try that on. Karma style system will allow for interesting naughtiness in space as you only get the extreme penalties (whatever they may be) if you are an unrepentant serial offender. Accidental and modest badness will get the equivalent of parking tickets/fines im sure so no need to panic about no 'Dangerous' left.

As the OP mentioned research and studies i'll throw in a shoutout to the seminal work on online community behaviour of players Bartle's Taxonomy. What it says about the motivations and effects of the player type it terms 'Killers' is particularly relevant to this thread. If theres an overabundance/overzealous amount of that player type in a community they eventually drive away the other types (i.e. solo/PG groups taking over from Open Play. sound familiar?)... and then the target starved killers leave quickly themselves (no salt to mine from the only abundant playertype left: killers).

 

[yodajedifishmaster]

well written post OP <salutes>

I'm down for a karma based system so mark me down as optimistic. We dont have any solid details beyond some spitballing so we cant get stuck into the final outcome yet (oh but we will in time i'm sure). I'm down for real space-sim open world pvp (i.e. piracy vs players, bounty hunting on naughty players, big civil war/power play driven kickups), none of this needs or requires wanton butchery of sidewinders with learner plates on. Eve actually freezes youre account if you try that on. Karma style system will allow for interesting naughtiness in space as you only get the extreme penalties (whatever they may be) if you are an unrepentant serial offender. Accidental and modest badness will get the equivalent of parking tickets/fines im sure so no need to panic about no 'Dangerous' left.

As the OP mentioned research and studies i'll throw in a shoutout to the seminal work on online community behaviour of players Bartle's Taxonomy. What it says about the motivations and effects of the player type it terms 'Killers' is particularly relevant to this thread. If theres an overabundance/overzealous amount of that player type in a community they eventually drive away the other types (i.e. solo/PG groups taking over from Open Play. sound familiar?)... and then the target starved killers leave quickly themselves (no salt to mine from the only abundant playertype left: killers).

yes they all laugh at killing each other because they got infinite rebuys anyways and its an ooops moment they can put on youtube... then it all gets boring because nobody ragequits after they kill them and they all drift off to ruin some other game...

 

[Mordredd]

yes they all laugh at killing each other because they got infinite rebuys anyways and its an ooops moment they can put on youtube... then it all gets boring because nobody ragequits after they kill them and they all drift off to ruin some other game...

Brace yourself Roberts Space Industries

Oh i should say not all PvP guys would be classed as 'Killers'. Competitive pvp'ing is quite strongly aligned with 'achievers'.

 

[m0rl0ck]

Most of what needs to be done to balance PVP could be accomplished with the removal of the Engineers. PVP is locked behind a grindwall that only those with some sort of emotional disfunction are likely to be motivated to scale.

So its simple, remove the engineers.

I just cant beleive the contortions FD goes through to try to make up for sabotaging their own game.

 

[Deadspin]

He's referencing a movie where a guy is pretending to be a mercenary/killer and gets called out by another actor with that line. It has to do with the Special Air Service in the UK.

Basically, he is insulting you as a fake/fraud.

Thanks for explaining that for me, it's nice to know who the true pieces of excrement on the forum are.

Most of what needs to be done to balance PVP could be accomplished with the removal of the Engineers. PVP is locked behind a grindwall that only those with some sort of emotional disfunction are likely to be motivated to scale.

So its simple, remove the engineers.

I just cant beleive the contortions FD goes through to try to make up for sabotaging their own game.

I couldn't agree more.

 

[True Phoenix]

My 2 pence here. (Clearly I am not 'merican)

Open is open. If you get killed, well that's what can happen. However being killed is not griefing.

I played a rather shoddy game (talk about repetitive daily duties...pah!) that involved 2 sides, 1 blue, 1 red. It was all open, no other mode. A few safe sectors for newbies with limited resources for them to gather, other than that it was an open field.

The PvP in this particular online battlestar based galactic game is the be all and end all, ranging from lulz squads, lone wolf to full blown fleet on fleet action. Whilst the punishment for death is light in comparison, it was still to be avoided. Griefing? Practically non-existent unless you decided to go back for more (You can spawn in a far off system after death). This game is no different, you only get killed twice if you decide to stay in the same instance (open). So multiple deaths are the players choice. If you want to play your way and remain in open, in the system you just died in, that is your choice. There are alternatives.

We should not punish anything other than genuine griefing in ED and that is hard to find in this game unless you deliberately go looking for it. PvP is what it is, killing other players, motivation does not come into the equation. We certainly don't need amateur psychoanalysis to work out what a player needs to do to avoid multiple deaths from superior firepower or odds, there is a (temporary) get out of jail free card that any player can use.

Player choice is much easier in this game than many others both for temporary and permanent solutions. Getting yourself killed a second time in the same instance (because you think you have the right to not die in your game) and then whinge about it is not being griefed. Its just dumb.

 

[m0rl0ck]

I couldn't agree more.

And of course they wont do it. Every step they take away from the simple obvious answer will make ED more destructively complex, waste dev time and drive players away.
Imo FD could just bite the bullet and maybe save the game or at least save open play mode, but i think that instead they will choose to kill it slowly under the weight of its own complexity, with increasingly grotesque attempts at "balance".

 

[W.T.Sherman]

I have a bit of anti-social or social anxiety tendencies myself. I despise killing people in games for no reason in a non-competitive environment. I have never felt good about 'ganking' anyone in any game unless there was a tangible in game objective to compel me to do so. I think Nalessa explained it pretty well for me. Sometimes it does feel good to play a bad guy in a game, but never for salt and never senseless. A gentleman outlaw, if you will, whenever I have the urge.

Being non social or having social anxiety or being socially awkward, or any of these types of things are not the same as the anti-social pathology the OP was talking about. What you describe D, sounds something like a well adjusted human.

 

[Mordredd]

Most of what needs to be done to balance PVP could be accomplished with the removal of the Engineers. PVP is locked behind a grindwall that only those with some sort of emotional disfunction are likely to be motivated to scale.

So its simple, remove the engineers.

I just cant beleive the contortions FD goes through to try to make up for sabotaging their own game.

well its slightly more complex than that. you're spot on with RNG gear being a bad fit for a competitive pvp/esports game. Are we sure thats exactly what they are building here? Its more of a a 21st century update to the originator of the space-sim genre. Currently they are slacking on any multi-player sim elements aside from combat so it's an easy assumption to fall into

Now i love my competetive pvp games and i'd be fuming if someone added RNGesus into an equasion that should be pure skill/know youre stuff. But if they weren't intending to do that then it's hard to say its totally stupid (maybe they are only less than optimally smart). its okay for pve (grind grind), its okay for open world pvp where nothing is meant to be exactly equal anyhow (budding cobra long john silvers dont get the luxury of only pirating other cobras). It is an excellent choice if they have a pressed dev team and want a gear system that keeps people occupied for ages while they get on with work

 

[Minonian]

For the purpose of this note, a griefer is (a person who harasses or deliberately provokes other players or members in order to spoil their enjoyment)[https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/griefer]. Activities pertaining to Elite include targeting new players for destruction, interfering with community events, using combat zones to score easy kills of cmdrs, and the like. Griefers claim theirs is a valid play-style, introduces 'emergent content', and 'educates' players on proper preparation and game-play.

Sorry excuses to keep doing it.

Decades of research shows no causal effect between virtual and real world violence per se. The research is increasingly clear, however, that folks with anti-social traits are drawn to griefing in online, multi-player games. The traits that characterize griefers are the dark tetrad of Machiavellianism, narcissism, psychopathology, and sadism. Basically a subset of players engage in griefing for malicious reasons. The anonymity of online interaction also provides them safety from consequences, unless anti-griefing policies and practices are implemented.

You know what? For a change i really want to hear something what i did not able to spot out without psychologist diploma and extensive research, at my teen days. (Take no offense! It's not aimed to you)

Anyway Thx for the heads up. Some proof always comes good.
And yes, wou definitely need a karma system in the game.

- - - Updated - - -

Cyberbullying, trolling, and griefing all contribute to unhealthy communities.

All of this exists But there are no griefing? How so?

 

[Minonian]

Now, on the matter of harassment, there may be something to talk about there. Players who hunt others only to kill the same one over and over and over...that's bullying/harassment. Though, i think many would agree that is a rare occurrence here.

Yes, this is how it's called in real life. In forum we call this trolling (because it's have the same psychology, and logics behind it but appears in a different form due to the environment differences) And We call it griefing in the games.
As usual, a lot of these people actually not inheritedly evil but most of the times are really badly scarred, and twisted in their souls. Sometimes beyond help. The usual story? The abused mistreated and poorly raised becomes the Abuser. Sometimes because they are simply don't know how to act like a normal human. And you know what? I don't really like to hurt any of em, but the thing is? They don't have the same reservations toward us. Just like in matrix... If you can't help em they are the enemy. And when you can help em? That's the rare occasion.

- - - Updated - - -

I think the idea of griefing requires that the target is sentient, has feelings.

Not in necessity. Destruction of property, are also can be griefing. Vandalism!

 

[Stealthie]

Thanks for explaining that for me, it's nice to know who the true pieces of excrement on the forum are.

Is it those who attempt to use dead people as currency to buy credibility for their opinions?

That'd be my first choice, at least.

 

[A D]

I read the OP carefully. It was well written and thoughtful, but I was not persuaded that it is correct or useful to draw a correlation between in game and real life behaviour or transpose the two. It is not correct because video games encourage fantasy anti-social behaviour. Responding to the game in that way does not mean you are anti-social in real life. It is not useful because video games are incapable of recognising a player's subjective intentions or motives. Destroying a ship is just a bunch of code processing the action as valid whether you are The Pope or Ted Bundy.

This does not mean that a video game can not impose rules thought to discourage bad behaviour, but in the end it is simply comes down to what the game mechanics do or do not allow regardless of anyone's subjective view. There is of course one notable exception, we may end up with Sandy Smarko's view of what constitutes bad behaviour because he has the keys to the game.

 

[Minonian]

The problem is most of what is kicking around as 'griefing' is not, nor is it toxic.

Bluntly, getting killed in Open isn't griefing. Getting killed repeatedly in Open at the same CG trying to make runs isn't being griefed. Getting randomly attacked by someone you wander across isn't being griefed. Getting killed repeatedly by other PP CMDRs while you are pledged to someone else isn't.

Having someone follow you around endlessly killing you might be griefing though (though easily avoidable).

Cleaning up a small handful of folks isn't done by hammering everyone - which is what the vast majority of these C&P threads would do.

Please!!! At first you guys saying griefing is ok git gud! Than saying we making friends it's a valid way to play. And saying griefing is rare! And when you guys starting to feel the icy breath of death on your neck? Comes this!

Do you really think anyone going to belive it, aside of you?
And naturally all the time just keep badgering to stall the response.

- - - Updated - - -

I read the OP carefully. It was well written and thoughtful, but I was not persuaded that it is correct or useful to draw a correlation between in game and real life behaviour or transpose the two. It is not correct because video games encourage fantasy anti-social behaviour. Responding to the game in that way does not mean you are anti-social in real life. It is not useful because video games are incapable of recognising a player's subjective intentions or motives. Destroying a ship is just a bunch of code processing the action as valid whether you are The Pope or Ted Bundy.

This does not mean that a video game can not impose rules thought to discourage bad behaviour, but in the end it is simply comes down to what the game mechanics do or do not allow regardless of anyone's subjective view. There is of course one notable exception, we may end up with Sandy Smarko's view of what constitutes bad behaviour because he has the keys to the game.

In any social environment anti social behavior can emerge, and if not kept in bay reigns supreme. And a multi player game, multi player community is a social environment.

 

[A D]

In any social environment anti social behavior can emerge, and if not kept in bay reigns supreme. And a multi player game, multi player community is a social environment.

So when you destroy a ship its ok because you are not anti-social, but when I destroy a ship its not ok because I am anti-social. How do you tell the difference, much less discriminate between the two in-game? Your view of anti-social behaviour is as irrelevant as is mine.