I just wish FD would focus more on an ingame, in lore, crime and punishment system instead of developing systems to sanctionize antisocial player behaviour. A player likes to blow up his sidewinder in stations to wreck havok for other players? A player likes to blow up newbies in starter systems or in gc systems without reason? It wouldn't really be a problem with a proper crime and punishment system. Let him lose faction standings, put bounties on his head and make him a persona non grata in game, in lore in the system he does such crimes. Make it last longtime. The universe is big enough after all. Let anarchy systems and pirate bases stay free from such restrictions. Doing crimes in fed land? Let his reputation sink in fed land but not with the empire etc. Deny him services in fed, alliance or empire space if he does malicious deeds there. This could/should include things like engineers and ships, too. But give him access to other sources like smuggling havens and pirate bases, anarchy systems and the like where he can get access to it again after getting his reputation up there (with pirating / assasination / smuggling etc.) with the local factions. If he gets blown up, let him start in a system where he isn't wanted to get him out of the way to prevent grieving. In short; create consequences (and opportunities) ingame not from an outside perspective.
Griefers and Elite's Emerging Karma System
- Thread starter Delilah
- Start date
We all know that cheating takes place in Elite, Massive profit shortcuts through broken game mechanics, Combat logging etc.
Cheating is a reality in ED and it needs fixing as much as the griefing does, infact there are many griefing methods that employ exploits. Station ramming for example.
Im not sure why people in these threads keep flippantly throwing around the 2 words 'moral values' as a point of negativity to a discussion about game design and ballance. Ive said this before but its an obvious straw man.
Last edited:
I dont know what deceased David Hume is up to, neither does anybody else!
What I do know that the thought lines of philosophers have been moved, because of how society moves. Many philosophers often quoted live in an age where they could not conceive a society we have today, and the impact those societies face by education, skills, the internet and global media. As previously posted, most of us debating this sit well chaired in the security of our First Nation shelters, I being a Scandinavian, certainly do.
Rejecting one ism has to be substituted for another ism in order for society to survive.
Anarchies are not really fun or constructive, take your pick and go there, remember your flak jacket.
Much of this debate reminds me of the 70 ties debates in Paris, when the left wing left all credibility on the floor of rejectionism, and in the wake created the ultimate weapon of nihilism: Bader- Meinhof or Rote Armee. What came of it, nothing but more limits on personal freedom. In my opinion they rank among Pol Pot and Hitler as "People seducers". Ultimately they still stand as heroes of some on the left, believe it or not.
Old age is both a curse and a advantage if you are remotely intelligent, you can only give so much, but predict far more woes to come.
At least George Orwell put his body where his mouth was. Therefore my Avatar.
Cheers Cmdr's
Been there done that
If you remember Paris of 68 then you are an elder with wisdom to share, and I say that with sincere respect.
It's not a strawman when people do call every little thing that they don't like a cheat or an exploit. There's actually very few things that Frontier has come out and said "This is a bug/exploit, don't use it." The rest of it is based on people's opinion that others are progressing too fast, beyond what they're comfortable with, so they take the moral high ground while telling everyone else they are cheating. We were told early on that there would be 'gold rush' scenarios in the game, how can you tell the difference between that intended situation and what you feel is an exploit? By the way the community defines these things, even the most legitimate gold rushes aren't allowed to exist because they must be broken. As an example (not a gold rush example), refreshing the mission board by logging out was confirmed to be fine by Frontier a long time ago, people still cling to the idea that it's an exploit.. Gamey and not ideal perhaps, but not an exploit or cheat.
Moral values do get used in many arguments in an attempt to try and convince other people that they are doing something wrong. The same thing has happened with griefing, where that has been manipulated to the point where simply shooting another commander in Open is somehow griefing to some. It's not how any of this works.
Last edited:
TBH Fdev rarely have an opinion on anything, if there is one thing that i have noticed from Fdev about many of the known issues with the game is the sheer loadness of their quietness.
When a player can earn hundreds of millions in a day and unlock billion credit ships within meer weeks, something is broken. Youtube is littered with advice to players of how to achieve these wonderful profits. Fdev do 'EVENTUALLY' reballance the mechanic or patch out the system being taken advantage of. Anyone here could list you plenty of past and even current examples.
A gold rush scenario would be a high paying CG, Ram Tah's 100 million Guardians mission etc.... not stacking 20 kill missions and then killing 10 skimmers to earn 150 million credits in an hour.
This undermines everyones legitimate effort in the game and devalues the entire experiance for all concerned.
But cheating and exploiting isnt just about making money its also about gameplay. As before combat logging. Station ramming. Lynch mobs at CG's with overpowered space titans taking out Novice ranked Asp Explorers. etc.
Last edited:
Is this not similar to what Sandro said he wanted to do?
Minonian
Banned
true. I know it, but felt its time to put the things to their place in the heads of some people.- - - Updated - - -
Not really, since there is no complete agreement between us. So allow me, to finish it. because you see? We have a base nature hardcoded into us, we just not fully understand our base "laws of robotics" and when your upbringing conficting with this, and / or the society? Than we got problem!
Because at the first case. To use programming as analogy; We got conflict between the hardware, "bios" and drivers. Effect? Psychological, and in some cases biological "bugs", Hardware and software malfunctions. psychological and psychosomatic sicknesses. the real trouble is, our psychological nature not in necessity the same, but still have the same foundations. It's just much more malleable, than our biology, and biological buildup.
At the second case? you will be in conflict with society, and that can be bad enough.
I think the trick is, to have a way of thinking what matches with your nature, without too much conflict with society. And also? the society, can't be in conflict with our nature, and needs. As a person, and community.
Edit; To put it simple? Most of the world problem are coming from this! We are trying to force the human nature in shapes what's matching ideologies, and society. But if we want a better more live able world?
It must be the other way around!
The society, moral standards, and upbringing must match to human nature, they must be complete strengthen each others, help to keep the negative sides in check.
Last edited:
There is no need for us to completely agree with one another. My statement stands that what you previously stated as a negative (as in the opposite of affirmative) response my quoted statement in fact repeated my argument.
You are trying to argue that there is a basic set of operations or principles inherent to us with differences that develop on top of it. My argument has rooted itself in dispelling the superstition that there is absolute morality, therefore I really don't see what is the point of confusion or contention here, the two are not mutually exclusive and you never disagreed with me unless you misread my arguments somehow.
Take a look in a dictionary, your disdain is misplaced. The word 'grief' has more than one sense.
Oxford: 2 informal Trouble or annoyance. ‘we were too tired to cause any grief’
Merriam-Webster: 3 c trouble, annoyance. 'enough grief for one day'
You're right, hyperbole is so awful, perhaps the most unforgivable of all sins. Holy Mary mother of Jesus.
*clenches fists and blinks back tears of rage*
I must be insane. I keep coming back here thinking I'm going to find people making sense.
Nope. Not even worth trying.
Nope. Not even worth trying.
As a former SOCOM meat eater, I've been there and done that. Thank you for continuing the fight after I was sidelined due to injuries.
That said, conflating grief like this with in-game griefing is to miss the secondary definition of the word.
And as someone who has a mental health professional as a wife, I can tell you that she and her colleagues have absolutely conducted sufficient research to back up the OP inasmuch as a limited subset of those who engage in such activity are mentally or emotionally disturbed. By no means is it all of them, of course, but it's a valid point. The online world, nowadays, is not entirely a fiction for many. Children of this era consider their digital goods to be as real, and of as much value to them, as anything else they own. Intentional bullying or harassment can be as damaging to many online as it can be to children in school or anyone else in other walks of life. It is not up to us to define for others the parameters of what matters to them. The freedom to do so is part of why you, I, and our brothers in arms fought and so many died.
Now, personally, I feel it's important to remember that each of us ought to own our own decisions and conduct ourselves as needed in order to avoid things which negatively impact us. It's for this reason that I largely game alone or with a close knit group of friends. It isn't that the griefers damage me emotionally so much as I have better things to do with my leisure time than deal with childish behavior. That said, I do agree some sort of karma system is called for. Heck, even Eve Online ended up having to do this in the long run. Many may not remember the days when security status was hardly even a big deal in that game, but I do. I remember when someone with as low a security rating as was possible could, if they were careful, freely roam the systems and Concorde generally didn't do much to them if they were careful. That changed, though, because the community demanded it. And Eve Online is a game where this sort of so-called emergent gameplay (or as I like to call it, acting like an ) is considered just part of the game. That doesn't mean it doesn't need to come with certain consequences, however.
There is an absolute morality, only there are things in the universe that are unable to recognize or have use for it. Such as paperclips, rocks, and psychopaths.
Last edited:
That is funny but.. that is a huge topic for another forum. Philosophy in here would be next level hijacking.
Well there is a brilliant idea - a filter for your PvX interest.
How many CMDRs in this thread would click on the PvE interest and go on a murder hunt?
Now *that* - *THAT* would be a great little experiment and a real opportunity to identify the griefers, would it not?
Yours Aye
Mark H
- - - Updated - - -
This is the substance that some hard-of-thinking and hard-of-empathy players fail to understand. I don't believe that writing it down would even make them understand... but of course some others do understand, and simply become deliberately obtuse in order to justify their game-style or view-point.
Yours Aye
Mark H
I'm in two minds about griefing. One the one hand it's terrible, especially with new players who don't have insurance money, are just finding their way in the game etc., when people are attacked and destroyed in PvP just for the sadistic enjoyment of the griefer.
However, you then get situations such as the recent Salomé incident, where the guile and cunning of the griefer group that infiltrated her protection, and was able to destroy her after what was no doubt weeks of planning and preparation, just has to be admired.
Then there's the question of what happens if griefing occurs in a combat zone, haz rez, or as part of a combat CG... is it still griefing? Also, will it apply equally to player groups as to open?
I applaud FD for working to include a karma system, but how it will work will be a headache for them, and we shouldn't expect them to get the balance right straight away.
However, you then get situations such as the recent Salomé incident, where the guile and cunning of the griefer group that infiltrated her protection, and was able to destroy her after what was no doubt weeks of planning and preparation, just has to be admired.
Then there's the question of what happens if griefing occurs in a combat zone, haz rez, or as part of a combat CG... is it still griefing? Also, will it apply equally to player groups as to open?
I applaud FD for working to include a karma system, but how it will work will be a headache for them, and we shouldn't expect them to get the balance right straight away.
Minonian
Banned
Is it. Hormones, and how they are affect behavior.
Morality standards? They are purely artificial constructs and there are may of them. In that there is no Argument between us. Except? Some sort of them is necessary.
Your Code also is a set of law, morality standard to pirates.
And you know it's necessary.
I do find it odd how so much effort goes into discussing C&P as regards PvP, when surely the elephant in the room is "what PvP?"
What does the game offer players to do that orchestrates PvP? Can you go and fight for X protecting a capital ship against Y, and Y has CMDRs trying to destroy it?
Can you go an escort some civilian passenger ships from nav beacon A to B as part of a missions, and meanwhile other CMDRs have the mission to destroy them?
As part of Powerplay can you try and blockade a station (using actual dedicated blockade mechanics/gameplay), while other CMDRs as part of their Power's requirements are trying to run it?
Nope... After two+ years, we don't even have co-op missions, let alone anything approaching meaningful orchestrated PvP. Just a bunch of mechanics created for the game's lauch that CMDR make the best of.
So yes, a C&P system would be lovely to rein in psychotic behaviour. But we equally need the game to offer some more interesting ideally "legal" PvP gameplay/mechanics to take part in.
Last edited: