Lead Designers advice on dealing with griefing (part 2)
- Thread starter Stigbob
- Start date
QFT.
As I've said before, we had these arguments way back when, and the outcome was always the same. The devs don't want murderhoboism putting people off playing in Open, where they are playing for many reasons aside from being fodder for a certain subset of people. The PvP crowd think that they should have access to all players at all times, and are annoyed at any feature which prevents them from doing so, yet what they have always failed to understand is this: if people don't want to play with you, they are not going to play with you, no matter how you try and force the issue. Why they absolutely refuse to engage other like minded fellows is beyond me, but I can only assume that it is fear of facing combat ships, instead of unarmed traders.
Last edited:
That's a bit harsh when you consider that this is a computer game we are taking about. Getting their jollies from pounding lesser ships, perhaps.
I think the edited version is much better, but it's still funny if you consider that it's usually "them" who call people who play in Solo or use the block mechanic cowards...
I was remembering all the times we Solo/PG players were called cowards, so it seemed appropriate. I have expanded on it a bit more, but to me that's a fair assessment of the situation. Why don't we see more consensual PvP between equals, or as to near to equals as you can get in this game? Clan wars? Wing versus wing? It's almost entirely "let's bash this defenceless ship over here" and "let's mess with this guy while he's trying to dock", where is the real PvP which actually requires skill instead of a massive ship advantage? Nowhere it seems.
I don't have a problem with people attacking weaker ships, but attacking them AND calling them cowards if they don't like getting destroyed for no reason/telling them it's against the spirit of the game if they don't enjoy being the victim... Well this perfectly demonstrates why I don't want to play with them. And their inability to understand it just makes it worse.
Indeed. It's like walking into a bar, starting a fight with some random bloke who is not only smaller than you, but less able in a fight, and then being surprised that he's pretty annoyed by your behaviour, wants nothing to do with you ever again, and will make damn sure you and he and never in the same place at the same time. Now, personally I'd just break my glass on the counter and stab you to death for your efforts, but that's just me.
Don't really get the fuzz about the block feature, if you don't get matched with somebody because hes in group, or solo, or he put you on block makes no diffrence.
"Its not how Open is inteded to be!" Inteded is whatever FD wants to be and as far as I can tell they want to give Players a lot of room and tools to define that themselfs. And really, why would anybody want to play with people who don't want to play with you? Theres nothing in it for you it if he does not want to even when you encounter him. You are better off when you only get matched with people who want to engange with you.
"Its not how Open is inteded to be!" Inteded is whatever FD wants to be and as far as I can tell they want to give Players a lot of room and tools to define that themselfs. And really, why would anybody want to play with people who don't want to play with you? Theres nothing in it for you it if he does not want to even when you encounter him. You are better off when you only get matched with people who want to engange with you.
Good point, ultimately for me i'd much rather have one single online only universe and not fractured player base into multiple modes...
A thriving bustling galaxy with a great crime/karma call it whatever system in place that maintains a level of stability in places where it should according to security level and lower levels being a very UNPREDICTABLE place to be (it doesnt have to be threats eveywhere at all times bt should be something you maybe think twice when travelling in unprepped ships).
I know that this will never be the case so just accept it is what it is.
Without the available choices there might be less overall players, the options have allowed different types of player to play the same game via just the one BGS and more importantly to fund it. There may conceivably have been more players in open your way, but it would have been at the expense of game funding as the PVE'ers would have been less interested, which would be most of the funding if the rumours about open are true.
PVP and PVE should try to appreciate each other for making the game possible at all, even if they'll never play together.
PvE is my main activity when im playing elite , generally a friendly player but at times i look for some PvP action to 'Git Gud' enough to hold my own or survive at least a fight or gank with a more powerful/skilled opponent or opponents. Ive been seal clubbed and i have seal clubbed on some occasions, not many but it has happened.
I dont particurarly like the tactics of some cheap kills like minelaying and ramming but i have to tip my hat to the effort and enginuity of my assaillant.
Would i block them for it? No as personally i would rather learn from it and try to survive the next engagement if there is one. I can understand the frustrations of some players plights with the assaults inside stations when taking off/landing as that is when you a particurarly vulnerable as your sensors are hampered with the landing screen and no time to react or escape.
But in the end all i see are players playing a game how they choose not as greifers , i dont know how the block function will shape the future so view it with some skepticism as i would love to have one large open universe like i said jn previous post (kickstarter agreement was my dream will never happen).
Last edited:
Yeah, most of us fit somewhere in the middle of the two extreme ends of the player spectrum and mode switch however we choose according to mood or ISP wobbliness. My playing style is very similar to yours, although I've only ever seal clubbed in exasperated self defense.
With station griefing, yes it's ingenious find out how to do it and then find a new way with every fix. So report it to FDEV so it can be patched out and stop doing it or broadcasting how it's done. I'd actually respect that. We all know the stations are supposed to be safe, hence the no-fire zone and station announcements about aggression, and FDEV's efforts to make them safe. So the "it's possible therefore it's OK" or "I've just been bug testing the same thing for 6 months in open on other players" or "it's called Elite : Dangerous for a reason" or "they didn't stop me it's their fault" or even "I once believed an advert" isn't something that carries any weight when it comes to acting like a tedious chore.
An ingenious tedious chore I'd rather not spend any leisure time on is still a tedious chore, or to put it another way block fodder.
I don't think the block function will change much at all, it's been around since pre-launch and hasn't broken the game yet. I suppose it could have a minor positive effect on open player numbers, or improve the game for any open players who use it. It's definitely improved my open game, with just a handful of the right players blocked and to be honest that's the important thing to me.
It's funny because, this behaviour is a social one typically taught to children when they are ~3 years old. The ability to recognise that other people don't necessary enjoy what they enjoy - that they have their own feelings and thoughts on matters. So many people online seem to ignore that or were not taught it when growing up. Perhaps it's the isolation of sitting behind a computer. They feel like they're in their own company and thus it is only their thoughts and desires that matter.
More likely just because it is a game and one set in a mores breaking world at that. Real world behaviour does not apply. Trying to apply any kind of out of game morality on it is about as useful as arguing about what a Thargoid tastes like (chicken?). Behaviour in game in no way represents the nature of players outside of a game because it is a game, it's very nature means it is a place where people are not themselves and the standards of the outside word do not apply.
Last edited:
That's the thing, innit?
I'm not really keen on implying that PvPers are all sociopaths or sadists or whatever so I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they're just being a bit narrow-minded.
If ED was just a PvP combat sim', this wouldn't be an issue.
Everybody'd be there to kill the opposition and nobody'd have any reason to complain when they got killed.
That's not what ED is about though.
It offers people a whole variety of play styles and it offers people an opportunity to interact with others in a multiplayer environment.
I can understand how some people embarking on a given play-style might not want to meet up with certain others while, at the same time, Do want to retain the ability to interact with other people.
Just seems like some PvPers can't grasp this.
It's kinda like berating somebody who's bought a Ferrari when they don't want to race up and down the motorway at 140mph in it.
"If you only wanted to drive at 70mph, you should stick to a Prius".
I don't like how you equal the "PvP crowd to people who fears facing combat ships". Killing unnarmed traders or explorers has nothing to do with PvP, that's just ganking. Unless it has some PP or RP background is just ganking.
Not all PvPers ara gankers. Most of the PvPers are not gankers.
Last edited:
Heard it all before mate, no one's buying that line any more. It's why they're concerned about the block function, gank some poor sap, and there goes another easy target they'll not be seeing again.
The irony being that if somebody suggests that attacking a player who's minding their own business IS worthy of criticism, they're likely to get a trite "cos' I can" response.
I dunno.
Personally, I guess I am okay with the idea of letting people act like tools in the game, if they want to, but I reserve the right to assume such people are tools and I also sympathise with those who choose to block such people in order to reduce the likelihood of encountering tools.
Mostly, as usual, it all goes back to C&P.
If people act like tools and they face the possibility of consequences for those actions and they still want to act like tools then fair enough.
Hopefully, at the very least, those consequences will take a form which keeps them occupied in a way that reduces their impact on other players.
Q.E.D
The people you're playing with, are not just a game. There are real people that you interact with online and multiplayer gaming is a social activity, albeit a very peculiar and new form of socialising. It is not uncommon that people choose to behave differently when socialising online but it is interesting that you are so flippant. As if, by virtue of it being a game, you are absolved of any action you take to others. I wonder if cheaters use a similar rationale when deciding to circumvent the rules of the game or whether they choose to do so, because it is wrong and believe it so.
Morality is considered, throughout society, it is trivial and profound. Whether there is expectation, whether there are set rules, whether there are laws or governance, etiquette and boundaries. Your morality will impact your behaviour in everything because it is one of the most primal and universal motivators in human psychology. Just by your deciding that it is a game and therefore doesn't matter you have made a moral choice.
Anyway I digress, I hadn't even considered the morality of it until you brought it up. I mentioned behaviour and the rationale behind players needing to control how other players play rather than appreciating that they enjoy a different way of playing and finding someone else to play with - someone more like themselves. I said that children are taught this at around 3 - when they can appreciate the concept, because it is necessary for them to play with others and understand why sometimes people don't want to play with them. My thoughts were concerning the interactions of players, not whether these interactions are good or bad.
And as I began, Q.E.D. You believe that because you're sat at your computer, alone, playing a game - that certain social norms do not apply. It's exactly why I think the block feature is great, it allows players to get along and play how they want and enjoy it.
Apparently I need to mention (I don't think I have said it in this thread yet), I have no bother with players wanting to gank, kill, murder, ram - whatever, I'm happy with it. I definitely think there should be more consequence for these actions through in game C&P (currently not even laughable - just embarrassing) but I don't object to them. I also don't object to people wanting to block those players, so that they can enjoy the game in their own way. I prefer that the block feature exists, so that people can play with the people that make the game fun to them - it is after all, as you so adequately put - a game.
There is definitely a mentality among some PVP focused players that people must be their targets, always and forever, in every game and in every interaction.
I love PVP, almost every game I play is PVP focused. I'm queuing for my 5,480th game of Dota as I type. I've been playing PVP games since I got online. Never had trouble appreciating that other players do not enjoy PVP nor have I had any issue making friends and playing with those types of players.
Some players just want to watch the world burn
Last edited:
I can understand that just fine.
What I have difficulty understanding is why those people bought a game which features three play modes, none of which are actually advertised as providing that selective experience other than via private groups, yet seem to think it's everybody else that has the problem.
Last edited: