Griefers and Elite's Emerging Karma System

Heres my problem w post. We immediately look upon the biggest griefing as death of salome. Am i arguing it wasnt griefing? No. It was absolutely. But this event invited players out to do just that. By that logic every enemy ive ever ran across is a "griefer" in a game. Some big important people made some big important fool proof plans w their player groups while using their size to control situation and dictate terms and subterfuge won day.....not griefing at all. Even when a popular griefer does it.

- - - Updated - - -

Claus von stauffenberg griefed hitler if thats the side of the fence youre on. Otherwise he used subterfuge to attempt to eliminate a man in a very controlled environment. The war they were fighting made it very fair. Same as the event did on the 29th.
 
This thread is not about the Salome event. It's about a possible CandP system to deal with anti-social elements in the game, effectively making the punishment fit the crime.
 
Indeed, victims of griefers do disappear into Private or Solo for sometime - myself included which defeats the purpose of Open Play where you can meet other players and hopefully become friends. I find griefers behaviours no different to school kid bullies - what/where's the fun in destroying a ship that's significantly weaker especially when they also hunt for players in wings?

I have no problem with griefers as long as system security actually matters so that Medium/high security actually HUNT any aggressors while low and anarchy have poor to no protection.

Allowing "wild west" style in ALL of human space is the current problem.

Recently, I flew to Maia with a friend to check out alien activity and he was killed by a well known griefer upon entering the system. He was flying in an unarmed Asp whilst the griefer was in an FDL. Surely this act is not "playing the game"? In a matter of speak, it's no different to when you visit a tourist site and a couple of bad tourists jumps queue, steps on you, pushes you, etc. to spoil your enjoyment for selfish reasons. Hence, I agree with Zambrick that games are for entertainment plus social interaction. What's missing is some moderation unlike what you find in social media and forums.

Well, anarchy systems are just that, anarchy.

The issue of course is that if people also start to hang in all the possible "fun" anarchy hot spots and tourist spots the "griefing" might be worse there.

At the same time, anarchy should be "the wild west" and taking an unescorted T9, exploration D fitted Asp or any ship non geared for at least evasion WILL get blown to pieces and rightly so.

Still, even anarchy systems should have security close to stations and trade lanes.

Why? Because even for criminal organisations in anarchy disruption of business is well, bad for business.
 
Well, anarchy systems are just that, anarchy.

The issue of course is that if people also start to hang in all the possible "fun" anarchy hot spots and tourist spots the "griefing" might be worse there.

At the same time, anarchy should be "the wild west" and taking an unescorted T9, exploration D fitted Asp or any ship non geared for at least evasion WILL get blown to pieces and rightly so.

Still, even anarchy systems should have security close to stations and trade lanes.

Why? Because even for criminal organisations in anarchy disruption of business is well, bad for business.

Yes, entering an Anarchy system is riskier but the game supposedly balances the level of challenge based on the player's Combat rating, ship, etc. A human player killing an unarmed Asp in an engineered FDL armed to the teeth is hardly fair play is it? Is Frontier to blame for placing tourist sites, alien activities in an Anarchy system attracting players and griefers to visit and PvP? I don't believe so, except the system authority ships inside an Anarchy system are useless ... they don't help when a clean ship is attacked, so why put them there in the first place?
 
Yes, entering an Anarchy system is riskier but the game supposedly balances the level of challenge based on the player's Combat rating, ship, etc. A human player killing an unarmed Asp in an engineered FDL armed to the teeth is hardly fair play is it? Is Frontier to blame for placing tourist sites, alien activities in an Anarchy system attracting players and griefers to visit and PvP? I don't believe so, except the system authority ships inside an Anarchy system are useless ... they don't help when a clean ship is attacked, so why put them there in the first place?

Personally I think the challenge balancing should not really exist. I would rather have the combat rating be depending on security rating of systems for the upper limit of difficulty one can find.

Anarchy: Elite/Deadly
Low: Dangerous/Master
Medium: Expert/Competent
High: Mostly Harmless/Novice
Starter: Harmless

So going to an anarchy system could throw ANYTHING at you.
And while I do not like griefing of blatant killing of traders or pure explorers Elite has never been about being fair.
That said, non-anarchy systems need some serious visible and ACTIVE law enforcement.

And finally, I do to an extent agree that even anarchy systems should have active security but they should only be interested in protecting THEIR powerbase and business affecting them.

- Patrolling tradelanes towards stations against attackers against business going TO the station (business opportunity) and protecting their stations.

So ships ENTERING the system should have some security towards them but not for those leaving.
 
It all boils down to Risk v Reward, and what people perceive as fair. Every activity should have an element of risk. However, Griefers risk almost nothing, yet they expect me to risk hours and credits in open play. They ought to take just as high a risk intercepting haulers, explorers etc in a community goal as I risk flying through dangerous space to a system where I know, and they know, players have to pass through.

Just a simple suggestion.
e.g being able to hire a heavily armed and dangerous NPC escort from your power, provided you have a high enough rank, other than those dinky little fighters. Kill me sure, but it'll be difficult to survive the encounter. And if the "griefers" also hire an escort? Well at least it would a pretty insane fire fight and in the confusion, maybe I get a chance to escape, maybe I don't. Maybe I lose half my escort making further interdiction more risky, and replacing escorts more expensive. Maybe griefers will think twice about trying to ruin a community goal when plenty of players with plenty of protection participate. If you're in a competitive community goal, say, empire vs fed, you can still try to disrupt it, only it just gets harder. I always favor more creative ways to play over simply punishing players.


By the way Salome wasn't griefing at all, half the community goal was to kill Salome. It just felt like griefing because it was so poorly handled.
 
I'm sorry to hear about your son's situation.

Recall that this thread is not comparing grief (as in emotional loss, fear, etc.) in real and virtual life. It is rather about the "moral psychology" of those that grief within Elite (different meaning as folks have previously pointed out) and the detrimental impacts this has on people, especially those who are new.

I'd like to think that your son might be able to enjoy Elite at some time without being victimized by griefers.


I have read media reporting kids who commit suicides b/c they lent a unique sword to a friend in MMO games and the friend didn't return it.

You can argue the kids were naive to lend the sword but that will not return real lives lost. Hence, social media companies like Facebook work towards ensuring social responsibility is adhered b/c young people are so enthralled with social media and MMO games alike.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I see a certain pattern repeating in the current Karma discussion. Watching Isinona's latest video, the words of a certain infamous commander directed towards Isinona made me realize just how much the similarities ring true: "Oh look it's that ____ FA off dude"
Now you might say that it was just said in jest, but was it really? Or isn't that just an excuse?

But thankfully we now have a discussion about a Karma system. It was long overdue. There's a group of players whose playstyle and behavior is under threat by that system, and they are trying their best to keep consequences away from their "playstyle".

I've experienced a similar thing before. Way back when, I ran a little internet service which was based on social interactions and chat. And after laying the groundwork and getting things going, a staff of maintainers was recruited to keep order in the house.
At some point I received reports of people getting harassed and cussed at right after joining. A small group of users were acting aggressive towards anyone outside their own little group. I did a little experiment and connected as a new user from a different IP and sure enough, the first things I was told was to "get the X out" and other nice things. I saw that they basically derived joy out of other people's grief and anger. They deliberately picked soft targets and used sockpuppet accounts to amplify what they were saying, the whole nine yards.

When eventually confronted with these findings, they claimed that they were:

1) engaged in sophisticated roleplay
2) providing depth and entertainment
3) enriching the environment with conflict and uncertainty

Sound familiar?

I am convinced that the same thing is going on in this game at the moment. Oh sure, we have people who just want to play a dangerous lifestyle, and there's nothing wrong with that, but it's impossible to deny that some players just want to see the world burn in ED, and they don't care about anything other than "the lulz". That's why they hang out not just near CGs, but also near spots which in no way have anything to do with any faction or bounty: Generation ships, nebulae, basically any point where lots of non-hardcore players are likely to be found who just want to visit the sites they've heard about in a newsletter. I'll be the last to say that you should be completely prevented from doing such things if you want - but it should have in-game consequences for you, and anyone claiming that they should be exempt is someone the playerbase should be worried about.

Using exploits, combat logging, it's all part of the game for some people. You won't have much luck organizing wings against them because they pop once the odds are not in their favor. People who report exploits and money multiplication bugs receive threats, because that's what enables them to do what they enjoy the most: Make others miserable. That's really the whole goal. It's about Lulz, not "emergent gameplay".

So when you read the discussions in the karma threads, keep that in mind. Some of the responses are not written with legitimate motivations, but with the sole intent of detailing the debate, to divert attention from certain weak spots. So next time someone claims that X or Y would "ruin Elite Dangerous" and the chain of arguments doesn't seem to make much sense, take a step back, and keep in mind that this post might well just be an attempt to distract and dilute the debate.

Remember how certain people claimed that the ability to block people from appearing in your instance was "basically cheating"? That's exactly the kind of argument I mean: Makes no sense (there's solo mode too), but hey, let's just throw it out there, maybe it'll distract a few people.

We need consequences for player actions in this game. This includes players who combat log as well as players who do the ingame equivalent of running through a shopping mall with fully automatic rifles trying to get as many people as possible.
 
Then you can tell the kid who didnt get shoes that at least some money was made. More could have been made and you could have had shoes but honey they had to kill for the lolz. I hope you understand it. Tell the veteran that doesnt get the medical care they needed was because the event was destroyed maliciously for the lolz.

You should probably look up charity operations so that you have a better understanding of the money pool as it comes in and how it's used. Also, I'm a veteran, so do you really want me to explain to you how the VA works?

Hint: It has absolutely nothing to do with charity.


Name one organized charity event where strangers are allowed to run in the building shoot everything up and get away with it.

Name me one charity which shut down it's operations due to malicious activity at one of its centers, collection points, fundraisers? That's a more apt analogy. IMHO a proper streamer would have continued on, not given up.

Games are not risk Games are games. They are supposed to be fun. They can contain risk but they are not themselves a risk. They are supposed to entertain. So when some griefing idiot blows you up for no reason, then you stop having fun. If the reason they play is ruin other peoples experience, then how are people who dont want to do those things supposed to play? I can tell you how they play now. They disappear into Private and Solo and we never see them again. If games were not fun then they would not be games.

Games have risk 'in' them. That's why they are games. There are multiple replies prior to this explaining the flaws in your logic, read them.

Just because you specifically did not build your PC for Elite or video games in general, just puts you in the minority of the PC gaming community. Everyone else would like to get value for their investment. Most people on the planet cant just buy new hardware, software, and games on a whim. Just because it seems you can doesnt mean that everyone else has to measure up to your standard or lack thereof.

Stop and reread my reply to you, good sir.

I built the PC for gaming in general, not specifically for Elite. I do indeed get a return on my investment because Elite is not the only game I play. At the same time, I am not losing out on my investment over PK'ing, trolling, griefing, etc. If the MSN Gaming Zone taught me anything it's that trolls exist and there isn't a damn thing I can do about that so I move on and keep playing.
 
It all boils down to Risk v Reward, and what people perceive as fair. Every activity should have an element of risk. However, Griefers risk almost nothing, yet they expect me to risk hours and credits in open play. They ought to take just as high a risk intercepting haulers, explorers etc in a community goal as I risk flying through dangerous space to a system where I know, and they know, players have to pass through.

Just a simple suggestion.
e.g being able to hire a heavily armed and dangerous NPC escort from your power, provided you have a high enough rank, other than those dinky little fighters. Kill me sure, but it'll be difficult to survive the encounter. And if the "griefers" also hire an escort? Well at least it would a pretty insane fire fight and in the confusion, maybe I get a chance to escape, maybe I don't. Maybe I lose half my escort making further interdiction more risky, and replacing escorts more expensive. Maybe griefers will think twice about trying to ruin a community goal when plenty of players with plenty of protection participate. If you're in a competitive community goal, say, empire vs fed, you can still try to disrupt it, only it just gets harder. I always favor more creative ways to play over simply punishing players.


By the way Salome wasn't griefing at all, half the community goal was to kill Salome. It just felt like griefing because it was so poorly handled.

Many folks in this thread have posted good ideas. Thank you all. This idea of escorts is particularly interesting I think -- a potentially fun element of gameplay, another kind of consequence for griefers, a means to self policing, and something other games do with ease (think Galaxy on Fire or Vendetta Online).

- - - Updated - - -

I have read media reporting kids who commit suicides b/c they lent a unique sword to a friend in MMO games and the friend didn't return it.

You can argue the kids were naive to lend the sword but that will not return real lives lost. Hence, social media companies like Facebook work towards ensuring social responsibility is adhered b/c young people are so enthralled with social media and MMO games alike.


Thanks for bringing this up. You make a good point. I'm not suggesting there are no negative impacts from being online -- cyberbulling, doxing, smearing, etc. These can be devastating. Others more knowledgable about this aspect than I have spoken directly about this in previous posts. I'm simply trying to be careful and not equate the act and intentions of griefing (as in making trouble for others in-game) with the common meaning of grief (deep sorrow or anguish). :)

- - - Updated - - -

I see a certain pattern repeating in the current Karma discussion. Watching Isinona's latest video, the words of a certain infamous commander directed towards Isinona made me realize just how much the similarities ring true: "Oh look it's that ____ FA off dude"
Now you might say that it was just said in jest, but was it really? Or isn't that just an excuse?

But thankfully we now have a discussion about a Karma system. It was long overdue. There's a group of players whose playstyle and behavior is under threat by that system, and they are trying their best to keep consequences away from their "playstyle".

I've experienced a similar thing before. Way back when, I ran a little internet service which was based on social interactions and chat. And after laying the groundwork and getting things going, a staff of maintainers was recruited to keep order in the house.
At some point I received reports of people getting harassed and cussed at right after joining. A small group of users were acting aggressive towards anyone outside their own little group. I did a little experiment and connected as a new user from a different IP and sure enough, the first things I was told was to "get the X out" and other nice things. I saw that they basically derived joy out of other people's grief and anger. They deliberately picked soft targets and used sockpuppet accounts to amplify what they were saying, the whole nine yards.

When eventually confronted with these findings, they claimed that they were:

1) engaged in sophisticated roleplay
2) providing depth and entertainment
3) enriching the environment with conflict and uncertainty

Sound familiar?

I am convinced that the same thing is going on in this game at the moment. Oh sure, we have people who just want to play a dangerous lifestyle, and there's nothing wrong with that, but it's impossible to deny that some players just want to see the world burn in ED, and they don't care about anything other than "the lulz". That's why they hang out not just near CGs, but also near spots which in no way have anything to do with any faction or bounty: Generation ships, nebulae, basically any point where lots of non-hardcore players are likely to be found who just want to visit the sites they've heard about in a newsletter. I'll be the last to say that you should be completely prevented from doing such things if you want - but it should have in-game consequences for you, and anyone claiming that they should be exempt is someone the playerbase should be worried about.

Using exploits, combat logging, it's all part of the game for some people. You won't have much luck organizing wings against them because they pop once the odds are not in their favor. People who report exploits and money multiplication bugs receive threats, because that's what enables them to do what they enjoy the most: Make others miserable. That's really the whole goal. It's about Lulz, not "emergent gameplay".

So when you read the discussions in the karma threads, keep that in mind. Some of the responses are not written with legitimate motivations, but with the sole intent of detailing the debate, to divert attention from certain weak spots. So next time someone claims that X or Y would "ruin Elite Dangerous" and the chain of arguments doesn't seem to make much sense, take a step back, and keep in mind that this post might well just be an attempt to distract and dilute the debate.

Remember how certain people claimed that the ability to block people from appearing in your instance was "basically cheating"? That's exactly the kind of argument I mean: Makes no sense (there's solo mode too), but hey, let's just throw it out there, maybe it'll distract a few people.

We need consequences for player actions in this game. This includes players who combat log as well as players who do the ingame equivalent of running through a shopping mall with fully automatic rifles trying to get as many people as possible.

An impressive post making excellent points. As for the continuity between those who troll and grief, you are absolutely right. Much of the research sees them as peas in a pod, different ways of taking action based on malevolent intent.
 
Last edited:
If you are in the VA then you know that companys like mine and charities donate many millions of dollars for outreach programs and extenuating medical costs. So not sure what that comment is about.

Games have risk in them. The Game itself is not risk. (Hasbro owns that one. pun intended) The possible Karma system would now spread that risk evenly across all play styles. The only risk to being a griefer in ED is the risk that you might have to jump 1 ly away to a new system if and when the toothless NPCs decide to mess with you. Go to a station in that high security system suicide in a cheap ship and then you jump back in and continue to kill newbies in sidewinders. All done. Any risk to the griefing game play style has been mitigated by less than 3 minutes of work. Must be terribly inconvenient for them.

Meanwhile the person who read the steam description of this game and the description of the game on the ED website is now so completely disenfranchised that they log off never to be seen again. I know your response will be "So What" "We wouldnt want them in this game anyways, Get Gud". Well that my be what you might want. But the people that want the game to actually succeed dont. The Developer for example. People who are not purposefully and maliciously trying to burn the game down dont want to see it.

There is no posturing here. There is fact and consequences. This game has a well known griefing issue. If there wern't, then this thread and the many hundreds of others started for this topic would not exist.

MSN gaming zone? Do you mean the mobile game Candy Crush site casual game site? I am not sure how that compares really.
 
There is no posturing here. There is fact and consequences. This game has a well known griefing issue. If there wern't, then this thread and the many hundreds of others started for this topic would not exist.

Indeed, there's no denying about the griefing problem and the negative consequences on majority of other players who just want to play the game as it was designed. It doesn't help the problem when some sites write a rosy summary of how a well known griefer tricked other players into gaining an advantage to kill Salome and then challenges other players to kill them in this very forum. This may serve to entice other players to become griefers as the saying goes "If you can't beat them, might as well join them", but is the game designed for this? I hope not. I believe the original griefers have achieved what interest them in the game and has become bored, hence turn to griefing other players in weaker ships for selfish enjoyment. If there is a plot or story in this game, I reckon most would have stopped playing now.

We need consequences for player actions in this game. This includes players who combat log as well as players who do the ingame equivalent of running through a shopping mall with fully automatic rifles trying to get as many people as possible.

Agree. Currently griefers are merely getting a slap on the wrist when they grief or are reported. They should not be able to clean their Wanted status simply by killing themselves in a Sidewinder. Instead there should be a progressive scaling system where if the more times the offend (or are reported), their Wanted status will extend longer and/or into other nearby systems. Obviously, this will require Frontier to somehow prevent them from clearing their Wanted status by simply killing themselves in a Sidewinder.
 
Indeed, there's no denying about the griefing problem and the negative consequences on majority of other players who just want to play the game as it was designed. It doesn't help the problem when some sites write a rosy summary of how a well known griefer tricked other players into gaining an advantage to kill Salome and then challenges other players to kill them in this very forum. This may serve to entice other players to become griefers as the saying goes "If you can't beat them, might as well join them", but is the game designed for this? I hope not. I believe the original griefers have achieved what interest them in the game and has become bored, hence turn to griefing other players in weaker ships for selfish enjoyment. If there is a plot or story in this game, I reckon most would have stopped playing now.



Agree. Currently griefers are merely getting a slap on the wrist when they grief or are reported. They should not be able to clean their Wanted status simply by killing themselves in a Sidewinder. Instead there should be a progressive scaling system where if the more times the offend (or are reported), their Wanted status will extend longer and/or into other nearby systems. Obviously, this will require Frontier to somehow prevent them from clearing their Wanted status by simply killing themselves in a Sidewinder.

That would be a simple slider/tracker. They already have a similar system in place between the major factions. Shouldnt be too hard to track it over time. So if they ever do want to stop with the crime, they should be able to. But it should not be easy fast or cheap to do.
 
The answer is pretty simple.
If people want to play like an outlaw, they should be ready to live like an outlaw.

Driven out of high/med sec space by active pursuit by security forces so forced to operate out of anarchy or low security systems.
Docking restrictions
Shorter bounties that persist through death (no suicidewinder or getting friends to cash in)
Loss of faction ranks after multiple offences.
Increasing rebuy costs
Difficult access to engineers/upgrades

Things like this applied on an increasing scale. In game offenses, in game consequences
 
Last edited:
The answer is pretty simple.
If people want to play like an outlaw, they should be ready to live like an outlaw.

Driven out of high/med sec space by active pirsuit by security forces so forced to operate out of anarchy or low security systems.
Docking restrictions
Shorter bounties that persist through death (no suicidewinder or getting friends to cash in)
Loss of faction ranks after multiple offences.
Increasing rebuy costs
Difficult access to engineers/upgrades

Things like this applied on an increasing scale. In game offenses, in game consequences

Another pointless response. In my opinion. ;)
 
Back
Top Bottom