Anti griefer CG suicide-winder interdiction units...

[Morbad]

Can you show me the bit of the license for this game I own that says "must not upset Morbad by making menu selections he/she disapproves of".

My approval or disapproval of what you do, or do not do, with the game has no bearing on the fact, that according to the license you agreed to, you don't own this game.

Section 2, 'Grant and Scope of License' and section 5, 'Intellectual Property Rights': https://www.frontierstore.net/usd/ed-eula/

Even if this were an offline game, you wouldn't own it. This is pretty par for the course for any piece of intellectual property. Indeed, if it even has a license agreement, you can bet you don't own it.

 

[your mom]

Ok, I do have to stick by my own griefer comments as the term "continually interdict" is clearly griefing.

With that said, I'm waaaaaay more a proponent of action as opposed to the constant cycle of forum complaints about griefers. Action is almost always better than inaction.

He's not griefing, just like the wing of 4 ships interdicting 1 and immediately firing on that ship with no explanation isn't griefing. It's role play. And none of us will ever know what the role is. Carry on, John... you don't need to explain why you're doing it! You're creating content! Thank you!

 

[jasonbarron]

He's not griefing, just like the wing of 4 ships interdicting 1 and immediately firing on that ship with no explanation isn't griefing. It's role play. And none of us will ever know what the role is. Carry on, John... you don't need to explain why you're doing it! You're creating content! Thank you!

"Continually interdicting" the same person is quite explicitly griefing in the sense the Fdev defines the term.

 

[Leo Sagan]

Action is almost always better than inaction.

And often much more ... fun ... I mean : interdicting the bad guys and bragging about it in local is so full of win

 

[Stigbob]

My approval or disapproval of what you do or do not do in game has no bearing on the fact that according to the license you agreed to, you don't own this game.

Section 2, 'Grant and Scope of License': https://www.frontierstore.net/usd/ed-eula/

Even if this were an offline game, you wouldn't own it. This is pretty part for the course for any piece of intellectual property. Indeed, if it even has a license agreement, you can bet you don't own it.

I've just checked my game collection and I do in fact own a copy of elite dangerous.

What on earth has your desperate attempt at rule lawyering got to do with my use of the block function in a game that I own ?.

 

[Morbad]

I've just checked my game collection and I do in fact own a copy of elite dangerous.

You might own a box and some physical media.

What on earth has your desperate attempt at rule lawyering got to do with my use of the block function in a game that I own ?.

What does your use of the block function have to do with your ridiculous assertion that you have any claim to ownership of the game?

 

[your mom]

"Continually interdicting" the same person is quite explicitly griefing in the sense the Fdev defines the term.

You're point is well made. And yet I've been continuously interdicted at CGs by the same people and I'd rather die (figuratively in my fake space ship) than "reporting" these people. I like the idea of fighting fire with fire better. And I've also already done this in my courier! Wow... I'm a griefer! What's the next step?

 

[Stigbob]

What does your use of the block function have to do with your ridiculous assertion that you have any claim to ownership of the game?

What on earth are you waffling on about then ?.

 

[Morbad]

What on earth are you waffling on about then ?.

I honestly thought I had made that clear with my very first reply.

I'm pointing out that your claim of owning the game is mistaken. Such a claim would be mistaken no matter who was making the claim, unless they were the sole owner of Frontier and it's intellectual property.

Not your game, not your rules. Not my game, not my rules. Not his game, not his rules. Not her game, not her rules, Not our game, not our rules. Frontier's game, Frontier's rules...that they don't really enforce many of them is neither here nor there.

 

[Stigbob]

I honestly thought I had made that clear with my very first reply.

I thought we'd established that I do in fact own the game.

I'm pointing out that your claim of owning the game is mistaken. Such a claim would be mistaken no matter who was making the claim, unless they were the sole owner of Frontier and it's intellectual property.

Do you really think I was trying to claim to be David Braben or something ?. I bought the game, I own that copy. Not everything everyone ever says should be taken totally literally. For example there's a common saying "I could eat a horse" this does not mean the person saying it could in fact eat a horse, it means they are feeling very hungry and they have indicated this by naming an animal too large to be eaten in one sitting for lighthearted comedic effect.

Not your game, not your rules. Not my game, not my rules. Not his game, not his rules. Not her game, not her rules, Not our game, not our rules. Frontier's game, Frontier's rules...that they don't really enforce many of them is neither here nor there.

You are wrong there as well, my game (as we've established) so my rules apply. Nobody else has any input in what I choose to do with it, for example use of the block function or mode choice.

 

[LeKeno]

You don't own your copy of the game. You own a license to use said game: https://www.frontierstore.net/ed-eula/

In particular, I find " 4.4 You may not use the Game or any Online Features in a manner that could damage, disable, impair, overburden or compromise our systems or security or interfere with the experience of other users of the Game or any Online Feature." at odds with overuse of the block feature.

If I tend to be instanced with folks who have blocked a lot of outlaws, it would negatively impact my experience. I want to be instanced with outlaws so I can hunt them.

 

[Gunnet]

This is a pretty entertaining pastime. Although I prefer surviving, which is easy enough to do with the right (i.e. Imperial ) ship.

My preference is a Clipper. Fast and durable enough to stay alive when chain interdicting, but capable of buying somebody else time to escape if necessary. Carrying a mix of ion disruptor and reverb cascade mines comes in handy sometimes too.

 

[sb413197]

A maxed viper can interdict and go nearly 900. No need to self destruct.

I sometimes wonder if you fit long range fixed beams on them or something if you could eventually force a retreat from a PVP ship with plasma and rails et...

 

[kofeyh]

The idea being to buy a stock sidewinder in the CG station, fit a B or C class cheapish interdictor and continually interdict pilots who are behaving in an antisocial way.

This is already happening, only via the speed freak platoon that use insane fast-movers (couriers, i-eagle, etc) to do the same thing. But, careful, though, repeatedly harassing the same player (as apposed to single encounters) might run foul of the ToS, in that it's essentially anti-social harassment.

Don't get me wrong; I'm sure there is a ton of fun* to be had. But, if it's repeatedly the same CMDR? Might want to consider the consequences. Best of luck, though!

[*for various values of fun.]

 

[Gunnet]

This is already happening, only via the speed freak platoon that use insane fast-movers (couriers, i-eagle, etc) to do the same thing. But, careful, though, repeatedly harassing the same player (as apposed to single encounters) might run foul of the ToS, in that it's essentially anti-social harassment.

Don't get me wrong; I'm sure there is a ton of fun* to be had. But, if it's repeatedly the same CMDR? Might want to consider the consequences. Best of luck, though!

[*for various values of fun.]

*ahem* The chain interdictors are only present in a few hotspots out of many thousands of inhabited systems, anybody who wants to avoid them simply needs to stay away from hotspots. The game also provides two modes which they can hide in if they can't handle the risk of being chain interdicted and/or don't want to get good enough to counter it.

 

[kofeyh]

*ahem* The chain interdictors are only present in a few hotspots out of many thousands of inhabited systems, anybody who wants to avoid them simply needs to stay away from hotspots. The game also provides two modes which they can hide in if they can't handle the risk of being chain interdicted and/or don't want to get good enough to counter it.

..

 

[Gunnet]

..

https://cdn.meme.am/instances/76095604.jpg

Very much intentional.

 

[Stigbob]

You don't own your copy of the game. You own a license to use said game: https://www.frontierstore.net/ed-eula/

Nope it really is there on the shelf along with all the other games I own.

In particular, I find " 4.4 You may not use the Game or any Online Features in a manner that could damage, disable, impair, overburden or compromise our systems or security or interfere with the experience of other users of the Game or any Online Feature." at odds with overuse of the block feature.

That's a load of pathetic rule lawyering cobblers. I dare you to report me to FDEV for breaking the rules by using the block function exactly as it was always intended, and if I remember I'll give you regular updates about nothing whatsoever happening.

This may shock you, but if FDEV didn't want people using the block function they probably wouldn't have coded it in.

If I tend to be instanced with folks who have blocked a lot of outlaws, it would negatively impact my experience. I want to be instanced with outlaws so I can hunt them.

I don't care. My game my rules.

 

[Princess Nia]

by not allowing "griefers" to interdict and interact with players, you are being antisocial, therefore this is really antisocial behavior

 

[Robert Maynard]

by not allowing "griefers" to interdict and interact with players, you are being antisocial, therefore this is really antisocial behavior

Surely the interdiction and interaction is common between both types of play?

.... just that there's less likelihood of the interdictee exploding in one of them....

If interdicting and forcing an interaction is acceptable, it's acceptable for all. If interdicting and forcing interaction is anti-social then the "griefers" are equally guilty of it.