While I wouldn't want to diminish the awful things you've experienced going on to say that because of that suffering anyone else who experiences anything less should just lump it is not entirely helpful. Different people have different experiences and different reactions and are in different situations. You really can very much ruin someones day or week or month by being pointlessly nasty in game, that you don't find that a problem is you, don't expect other people to be the same.
Griefers and Elite's Emerging Karma System
- Thread starter Delilah
- Start date
While I wouldn't want to diminish the awful things you've experienced going on to say that because of that suffering anyone else who experiences anything less should just lump it is not entirely helpful. Different people have different experiences and different reactions and are in different situations. You really can very much ruin someones day or week or month by being pointlessly nasty in game, that you don't find that a problem is you, don't expect other people to be the same.
If we go back to (kinda) 1st principles then "Play your own way" has got to be the starting point.
Saying that being a psycho, griefer or terrorist (for example UA bombing) in this game should be allowed, and IMHO should have a career in the sense of unlockable engineers, modules etc, but there needs to be in-lore consequences to these actions too. Riedquat in the original game meant pretty much you were dead if you jumped in as new pilot - easily done as it is so close to Lave.
However, by choosing to play that way there should also be consequences that should fit in with the overall dynamism of the game. This is what FDev are guilty of not thinking through sufficiently, either through naivety or plain old not planning for emergent phenomena. Both easily done.
At the simplest level, having psychos and crazies in game, should give the bounty hunters something to do. The mechanics for this at the moment are sadly lacking, and this is the issue.
Further, wanted Commanders should not be able to use High Sec or medium sec stations to refuel or re-arm for example. Ramming in the no fly zone shouldn't be a shortcut to killing cmdrs.
Game design is about using in-game options and mechanics to promote the behaviour you want to see. So, let there be psychos, give them something to aim for and rewards, BUT at the same time make it easier for them to be hunted.
Reward piracy of ships, but not blowing them up indiscriminately (perhaps +150% to stolen goods sold at anarchy stations?). If you blow up clean cmdrs indiscriminately then mode lock you to Open and allow bounty hunting CMDRs to telepresence into bounty hunting NPCs, for example.
All the tools are there, and the solutions are to be found in game design, rather than banning behaviours.
Thanks for posting links to evidence OP and others, I will have a look at them when I have more time. Not everyone wants to play as a good guy, and the game needs to cater for them as much as anyone else.
Last edited:
I'm watching our conversation spin out in several directions associated with griefing. It is greatly satisfying to read so many folks grappling thoughtfully with the ethical aspects of Elite. And doing so without trolling too! 
There are three general directions folks are debating in. One is whether ethical principles are absolute or relative. Another is whether empathy is the root of ethics. And still another is whether ethics gets misused to condemn actions that some don't like in-game (e.g. board flipping). Each of these debates circles back to the question of griefing.
I'm going to post four separate but interconnected posts to address these debates. My sense is that debates are frequently not about who is right or wrong, but about potentially compatible insights seeking to be heard. Showing their connections can help people appreciate the insights of others.
I also realize this stuff is complex, space is limited, we are discussing Elite, so I'll be brief.
There are three general directions folks are debating in. One is whether ethical principles are absolute or relative. Another is whether empathy is the root of ethics. And still another is whether ethics gets misused to condemn actions that some don't like in-game (e.g. board flipping). Each of these debates circles back to the question of griefing.
I'm going to post four separate but interconnected posts to address these debates. My sense is that debates are frequently not about who is right or wrong, but about potentially compatible insights seeking to be heard. Showing their connections can help people appreciate the insights of others.
I also realize this stuff is complex, space is limited, we are discussing Elite, so I'll be brief.
Key to this discussion about griefing is recognizing that ethical norms -- whatever they are and wherever they come from -- are built into all online games/sims/virtual worlds at various levels of complexity. This is true in general as notions of what is good, right, just, better, or of value are ubiquitous in human affairs.
In gaming, some of these ethical norms address, but are not limited to, the importance of skill in game play, the rejection of cheats, the fairness of the criteria for winning, the structure of incentives and disincentives for in-game behaviour, and the scope for player interaction in sandbox environments. There is a growing wealth of gaming research on this subject.
Software companies composed of business and technical folks are sometimes unaware of all the norms they build into their products. This can come back to haunt them. That Frontier is, to its credit, awakening to the problem of griefing and the need for a karma, crime-punishment, and perhaps friend or foe mechanics is a positive example of growing awareness.
This is also why the aberrant psychology of many giefers is such a concern. It is not simply a matter of their own mental health (as important as that may be), but the negative impact griefers have on individuals and the communities.
In gaming, some of these ethical norms address, but are not limited to, the importance of skill in game play, the rejection of cheats, the fairness of the criteria for winning, the structure of incentives and disincentives for in-game behaviour, and the scope for player interaction in sandbox environments. There is a growing wealth of gaming research on this subject.
Software companies composed of business and technical folks are sometimes unaware of all the norms they build into their products. This can come back to haunt them. That Frontier is, to its credit, awakening to the problem of griefing and the need for a karma, crime-punishment, and perhaps friend or foe mechanics is a positive example of growing awareness.
This is also why the aberrant psychology of many giefers is such a concern. It is not simply a matter of their own mental health (as important as that may be), but the negative impact griefers have on individuals and the communities.
The question of whether ethics is absolute or relative is an old debate. Some say yes, some say no. There is another way to view it. Ethics is neither absolute nor relative but our best interpretation of how we ought to live. It is not about finding absolute *moral truth* or the lack of it, but generating *moral insight* and doing the best we can given the circumstances.
This is how I approach the matter of griefing in Elite. I find it quite helpful to be able to look for the insight in what people say, whether I agree entirely or not, and use that insight to deepen both my own and the community's understanding of griefing as a problem that needs to be addressed.
Our debate over relativism/absolutism boils down to whether we can come up with a single standard by which to define, evaluate, and address griefing. For instance, the *act* of piracy and griefing may in some respects appear similar. The *motivation* is not, and that is a key insight that no matter how hard it is to address technologically, is key to why we are concerned about griefing.
For myself, I'm not sure Frontier can develop *simple* definitions, criteria for evaluation, or technological responses. But I suspect that isn't needed. Some combination of a karma, friend or foe, crime and punishment, and/or other mechanic may be all that is needed to track and identify pilots who are miscreants, and give well intended pilots the tools they need for self-policing.
This is how I approach the matter of griefing in Elite. I find it quite helpful to be able to look for the insight in what people say, whether I agree entirely or not, and use that insight to deepen both my own and the community's understanding of griefing as a problem that needs to be addressed.
Our debate over relativism/absolutism boils down to whether we can come up with a single standard by which to define, evaluate, and address griefing. For instance, the *act* of piracy and griefing may in some respects appear similar. The *motivation* is not, and that is a key insight that no matter how hard it is to address technologically, is key to why we are concerned about griefing.
For myself, I'm not sure Frontier can develop *simple* definitions, criteria for evaluation, or technological responses. But I suspect that isn't needed. Some combination of a karma, friend or foe, crime and punishment, and/or other mechanic may be all that is needed to track and identify pilots who are miscreants, and give well intended pilots the tools they need for self-policing.
Last edited:
When you say "Frontier is awakening" to griefing.. What exactly are you using as source material?
The lone developer who's made offhand remarks about an incoming Karma system?
or..
The developer comments that, when grouped together generally, seem to lean to a more "PvP happens.. game is working as designed."
The lone developer who's made offhand remarks about an incoming Karma system?
or..
The developer comments that, when grouped together generally, seem to lean to a more "PvP happens.. game is working as designed."
Whether ethics is rooted in reason, cultural norms, psychological development, or the capacity for empathy is also a very old debate. Turns out it is all of these. While a small percentage of the population have diminished empathy or lack it all together, that does not take away from the central role empathy plays in motivating folks to do the right thing.
Darwin put it best I think, believing the 'moral and social sentiments' arose as a *capacity* in social species that improved the chances of individual and group thriving. He believed that this biological capacity was innovated upon by culture, resulting in a variety of different ethical norms in humanity. Most interestingly, Darwin thought the social and moral sentiments extended to the social insects in a very basic way, and were elaborated complexly by social animals including but not limited to human beings.
The application of our empathetic selves to griefing is straightforward. Empathy is part of what encourages prosocial behaviour in real life and in sandbox environments like Elite. The Fuel Rats, those organizing wings for the benefit of others (think Mobius), or those protecting noobs in starter systems, are all examples. Prosocial behaviour is also a community good. In Elite it seeks to promote the well being of new pilots, stop the exploitation of others by griefers, and promote the longterm success of Elite.
Darwin put it best I think, believing the 'moral and social sentiments' arose as a *capacity* in social species that improved the chances of individual and group thriving. He believed that this biological capacity was innovated upon by culture, resulting in a variety of different ethical norms in humanity. Most interestingly, Darwin thought the social and moral sentiments extended to the social insects in a very basic way, and were elaborated complexly by social animals including but not limited to human beings.
The application of our empathetic selves to griefing is straightforward. Empathy is part of what encourages prosocial behaviour in real life and in sandbox environments like Elite. The Fuel Rats, those organizing wings for the benefit of others (think Mobius), or those protecting noobs in starter systems, are all examples. Prosocial behaviour is also a community good. In Elite it seeks to promote the well being of new pilots, stop the exploitation of others by griefers, and promote the longterm success of Elite.
Claims about ethics *are* routinely misused in argumentation. Dogmatists and relativists both use it as a trump card to insist or dismiss. A for tat between such claims results in arguments stuck in an "either/or" trap -- either dogmatism or relativism. As noted above, either/or is not the only option, and looking for insights not truths is the way out of this trap.
We see this in debates over griefing. Griefers are fond of invoking moral relativism, or claiming that gaming is an ethics-free zone (e.g. "its a game so there can be no ethical concerns or consequences"). This is false in sandbox virtual worlds like Elite, where the consequences of griefing on a person's time, resources, and virtual identity can be quite real. Especially so because griefers feed on the consternation arising from the consequential nature of their actions. Put another way, their behaviour belies their words.
We see this in debates over griefing. Griefers are fond of invoking moral relativism, or claiming that gaming is an ethics-free zone (e.g. "its a game so there can be no ethical concerns or consequences"). This is false in sandbox virtual worlds like Elite, where the consequences of griefing on a person's time, resources, and virtual identity can be quite real. Especially so because griefers feed on the consternation arising from the consequential nature of their actions. Put another way, their behaviour belies their words.
This not only rings true, but is well spoken. Thank you.
[QUOTE
I genuinely think some people who post here complaining about 'griefing' would be reaching for the razor blades if they experienced ten minutes of Ultima Online, Pirates of the Burning Sea or THAT OTHER SPACE GAME.[/QUOTE]
Both Ultima and Eve provide or provided a grace period for new comers Elite should consider?
I genuinely think some people who post here complaining about 'griefing' would be reaching for the razor blades if they experienced ten minutes of Ultima Online, Pirates of the Burning Sea or THAT OTHER SPACE GAME.[/QUOTE]
Both Ultima and Eve provide or provided a grace period for new comers Elite should consider?
EVE didn't, I can't speak for UO as I never played it.
I got ganked within my first hour of turning EVE on by someone who baited me into attacking him. Of course, he passed me a few million credits (which was like HOLY CRAP money as a brand new player who knew nothing about the game), apologized and then gave me some pointers to help me avoid being ganked in high sec again but still.. EVE, where game mechanics were concerned, didn't give a damn about me as a brand new player.
Fair question.
Basically Sarmmarco's most recent comments (linked in my first post) highlighting a possible karma mechanic as part of a possible crime & punishment update. As part of these comments, his distinctions between tracking actions and not intentions, and the difference between combat readiness of pilots and their ships, lend emphasis to a karma system designed to identify griefers.
At the same time, I think you are also right that pvp happens is a strong value for Elite. When I say awakening, I think they are developing a brighter line between the support for pvp and piracy versus enabling griefers.
My only issue with that is that Sandro has been plonking down ideas for over a year when it comes to Karma and a C&P update. I don't think it actually points to any kind of awakening or unification of the dev team on the issue.
I don't envy FD this task. Finding a way to appropriately punish players for undesired behaviour while not at the same time opening up new forms of exploitation and abuse will be tough. A further complication is that in some cases what might at other times be considered abuse is well within the bounds of expected and even encouraged behaviour. How do you balance all that out reasonably and without even further community anger? It is really difficult. I don't believe there is any simple solution that wouldn't just mess things up in other ways.
I'm open to you being correct about this, but I hope that is not the case.
- - - Updated - - -
An entirely reasonable concern, which is one reason for us to help think it through ahead of time, a?
Not really.
Eve was mostly gated in 0.0 by organisations and the only griefing was mostly within empire space.
The difference with Eve was that within Empire and mostly lawful systems the police presence was swift and deadly.
It's not a swift and deadly I want in Elite but i would like to feel that there is a difference between Anarchy and High Sec.
Last edited:
I feel like it needs to be pointed out towards the debate of survival of the fittest, not as much a direct reply to either, that online griefing in a computer game does in absolutely no way translate to the real world especially survival of the fittest.
Among other things because in survival of the fittest, disruptive elements that hurt others are often removed, and groups have been known to gang up on those stronger then themselves to remove said disruptive elements, surprising isn't it?
But here's the thing, there is absolutely no survival of the fittest in a video game, because said griefer and others, do not have one life, if there was a perma death version of the game, you'd see people banding together to defend themselves, you'd see those groups fighting, sure, but what you wouldn't see much of is the random people that have gotten powerful going about alone griefing people, because that would be way too risky because a group that might not like them could find and jump them.
So yeah, please consider that survival of the fittest has gotten us to the societies we have today. However they themselves might not be related to that anymore, and most certainly it doesn't mean that just because the internet or a game on it, allows people to grief, that said griefers are part of 'survival of the fittest' because they are not.
Last edited:
Yep...
Can only hope there's some significant co-op (eg: Wing missions), PvP orchestion (eg: PvP orientated CGs, or Powerplay PvP enhancements) on the way, that then mean a dedicated C&P system makes sense to implement at the same time?
After reading through countless recent reaction threads on the whole Karma, Crime and Punishment subject...I find myself strangely relating to those who... regardless of how they try to rationalize it, explain it, reason it, actively support the anti social behaviour...I find myself relating because my online empathy center for them has just kind of finally shut off. I find myself not caring one whit about how they feel their game will be affected. It will improve my game, and countless others games. That's all that matters to me any more.