Lead Designers advice on dealing with griefing (part 2)

[Blaize Meduenin]

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.

Newsflash private group is not pve mode, there IS NO pve mode there is only open that is populated by both, I wish pvp players would be able to graqsp this simple fact but they cant.

Its not people who want to play with others cooperatively in an open world that have a problem, its the griefers and gankers who just want to interrupt their game that have a problem. If people want to pvp then fine, pvp with people who want to pvp, or you have in game cause to attack (e.g people running opposing powerplay missions etc). Is that REALLY so hard to understand?

Is life really so empty you have to get your kicks destroying a ship that cant fight back? What does that possibly gain you outside of laughing at their misfortune since there is no skill or challenge involved in destroying them. Then you say they are the ones with a problem. Laughing at the misfortune of others is the problem, a social one that most of us learned about as children.

If people use the block tool as it was intended and implemented to block those players, they have only themselves to blame.

 

[Stealthie]

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.

Maybe they believed that "play your own way" meant exactly that, rather than meaning "Play your own way but always do it in a fully PvP-capable combat ship or be prepared to have your butt handed to you"?

 

[Teh Smoo]

Newsflash private group is not pve mode, there IS NO pve mode there is only open that is populated by both, I wish pvp players would be able to graqsp this simple fact but they cant.

Its not people who want to play with others cooperatively in an open world that have a problem, its the griefers and gankers who just want to interrupt their game that have a problem. If people want to pvp then fine, pvp with people who want to pvp, or you have in game cause to attack (e.g people running opposing powerplay missions etc). Is that REALLY so hard to understand?

Is life really so empty you have to get your kicks destroying a ship that cant fight back? What does that possibly gain you outside of laughing at their misfortune since there is no skill or challenge involved in destroying them. Then you say they are the ones with a problem. Laughing at the misfortune of others is the problem, a social one that most of us learned about as children.

Oh, people understand perfectly. They just don't care.

They understand that a PVP-fit ship will win against ships fit for anything else. They understand that they don't like to lose. And that the game doesn't do a whole lot about it when you kill each other. And that they can send people to the rebuy screen.


And if they send enough people to the rebuy screen, and upset them, maybe mommy and daddy will get back together!

 

[Maxmilian Czhilli]

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.

I'd argue that the selective experience is both core to the design of ED and features heavily in the game's marketing:

Play your own way

There are of course restrictions for technical and gameplay reasons. But on the whole FD try to give the individual player as many options and as much freedom as possible to personalise their experience.

When it comes to matchmaking we have several tools for personalising our experience:

Don't want to encounter any other players? There's a Solo option.

Want the chance to meet as many other players as possible? There is an Open option.

Want to play multiplayer but only with a restricted white listed group? There's a Private Group functionality.​

And there's more:

Want to improve your chance of meeting certain players in the game? The friend list will do that.

Players you'd rather avoid? The block list will help with that.​

A player using any combinations of these systems to effect matchmaking is exercising their freedom to "Play their own way" just as designed and marketed by Frontier.

There are some players who would like to restrict these options and impose their own ideas of gameplay on others. I think they are the ones who have really misunderstood the game and the intentions of the developers.

 

[Stigbob]

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.

Thats true, but all the gankers claim that they are PVP'ers. Other people will apply the same label the same way if it's so commonly misused. It's not just in-game behaviour that's a theoretical threat to open, the arguments made in favour of open/PVP by self proclaimed PVP'ers (who are in fact as you rightly pointed out frequently just gankers) are off-putting for the majority of players.

Call out the gankers for what they are, reclaim the name PVP'er for the people who actually do some PVP.

 

[Minonian]

(begin sarcastic)

Griefers and trolls are funny lots... First they are rob or kill annoy you which as we all know totally harmless, and absolutely no annoying, angering it definitely not ruins your day, wrecks your nerves and and after that? When we dare to use some rude words, what we also well know the most destructive weapon known by humankind and capable to destroy the entire universe they are begin "offended" and reporting, shaming / placing us to KOS list.

 

[MarkAusten]

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.

I'd run like hell!

 

[CMDR Ofan]

Q.E.D
( and so on )
Some players just want to watch the world burn

While it is very easy to try and pass negative commentary on the morality of human players using out of games rules there is an easy litmus.

1.Look at computer games, then look at real life.
2.Look at a multiplayer game then look at real life.
3.Look at how you play (this) game(s) then look at real life.

1 - Do things happen by design in computer games that cannot and would not happen in real life? Yes.
2 - Is it acceptable in multiplayer games for players to kill each other? Yes.
3 - Have you ever killed the avatar of something that represents a human, be it npc or human controlled in a game (can't speak for everyone but the answer is likely a)? YES.

These are all thing that are morally and socially unacceptable in a real world context but are part of (this) game(s) by design.

So there you go, rather than bandying around buzzphrases like Q.E.D without really having a claim of any substance you can easily assess the precedent, context and reality of there being no sense of moral continuation from the real world to a computer game. It also demonstrates that there should there be any expectation of external/real world rules, morality or social behaviour applying. Even the way PVE content is played in ED morally supports the notion of PVP and players killing each other indiscriminately at the drop of a hat, it is literally how the game content is...

"I'm gonna boil you up".... etc.

Of course it may be easier to attack players rather than accept that reality of games, human nature is a funny old beast.

 

[babelfisch]

While it is very easy to try and pass negative commentary on the morality of human players using out of games rules there is an easy litmus.

1.Look at computer games, then look at real life.
2.Look at a multiplayer game then look at real life.
3.Look at how you play (this) game(s) then look at real life.

1 - Do things happen by design in computer games that cannot and would not happen in real life? Yes.
2 - Is it acceptable in multiplayer games for players to kill each other? Yes.
3 - Have you ever killed the avatar of something that represents a human, be it npc or human controlled in a game (can't speak for everyone but the answer is likely a)? YES.

These are all thing that are morally and socially unacceptable in a real world context but are part of (this) game(s) by design.

So there you go, rather than bandying around buzzphrases like Q.E.D without really having a claim of any substance you can easily assess the precedent, context and reality of there being no sense of moral continuation from the real world to a computer game. It also demonstrates that there should there be any expectation of external/real world rules, morality or social behaviour applying. Even the way PVE content is played in ED morally supports the notion of PVP and players killing each other indiscriminately at the drop of a hat, it is literally how the game content is...

"I'm gonna boil you up".... etc.

Of course it may be easier to attack players rather than accept that reality of games, human nature is a funny old beast.

For me there is a difference between the game and the forum. I don't have a problem with people trying to blow each other up. If I don't want to be part of it I simply play in another mode. And if someone is particularly annoying I'll add him to my block list (didn't happen yet). However, telling me on this forum how I have to play the game, and that I am supposed to be someone's content so this guy can satisfy his needs to kill weaker ships, going on that I am a coward and cheater if I use Solo or blocking... Well I'd say that's a real life action and morally wrong.

 

[Stigbob]

While it is very easy to try and pass negative commentary on the morality of human players using out of games rules there is an easy litmus.

1.Look at computer games, then look at real life.
2.Look at a multiplayer game then look at real life.
3.Look at how you play (this) game(s) then look at real life.

1 - Do things happen by design in computer games that cannot and would not happen in real life? Yes.
2 - Is it acceptable in multiplayer games for players to kill each other? Yes.
3 - Have you ever killed the avatar of something that represents a human, be it npc or human controlled in a game (can't speak for everyone but the answer is likely a)? YES.

These are all thing that are morally and socially unacceptable in a real world context but are part of (this) game(s) by design.

So there you go, rather than bandying around buzzphrases like Q.E.D without really having a claim of any substance you can easily assess the precedent, context and reality of there being no sense of moral continuation from the real world to a computer game. It also demonstrates that there should there be any expectation of external/real world rules, morality or social behaviour applying. Even the way PVE content is played in ED morally supports the notion of PVP and players killing each other indiscriminately at the drop of a hat, it is literally how the game content is...

"I'm gonna boil you up".... etc.

Of course it may be easier to attack players rather than accept that reality of games, human nature is a funny old beast.

NPC's are not people, they are artificial and only exist to be our playthings (poor NPC's no wonder skynet got miffed).

Treat a person like a plaything and that individual may decide you've broken Wheaton's Law and act accordingly by opting out of allowing you the privilege of interacting with them. Human nature once again.

 

[Genar-Hofoen]

While it is very easy to try and pass negative commentary on the morality of human players using out of games rules there is an easy litmus.

1.Look at computer games, then look at real life.
2.Look at a multiplayer game then look at real life.
3.Look at how you play (this) game(s) then look at real life.

1 - Do things happen by design in computer games that cannot and would not happen in real life? Yes.
2 - Is it acceptable in multiplayer games for players to kill each other? Yes.
3 - Have you ever killed the avatar of something that represents a human, be it npc or human controlled in a game (can't speak for everyone but the answer is likely a)? YES.

These are all thing that are morally and socially unacceptable in a real world context but are part of (this) game(s) by design.

So there you go, rather than bandying around buzzphrases like Q.E.D without really having a claim of any substance you can easily assess the precedent, context and reality of there being no sense of moral continuation from the real world to a computer game. It also demonstrates that there should there be any expectation of external/real world rules, morality or social behaviour applying. Even the way PVE content is played in ED morally supports the notion of PVP and players killing each other indiscriminately at the drop of a hat, it is literally how the game content is...

"I'm gonna boil you up".... etc.

Of course it may be easier to attack players rather than accept that reality of games, human nature is a funny old beast.

Your particular line of argument here is weak. You're trying to use NPC's as justification for indiscriminate player killing. Here's why that fails...

NPC's don't...

1) Indiscriminately murder every player ship all day every day (I believe there's a 'psycho NPC' every now and then bu they're rare)

2) Attack players inside a starport by repeatedly ramming into them and blocking them from docking at their assigned pad.

3) Attack players at starports by launching Reverb Cascade torps at them as they're trapped in the toaster rack then finish them off with other RNGineered weapons as they emerge weakened.

4) Attack players at starports by laying Reverb Cascade mines in and around the starport entrance

5) Camp at RNGineer bases and indiscriminately murder players

6) Specifically target any and all CG systems and interdict and gank players with vastly overpowered RNGineered ships

I think that about covers the main things which distinguish NPC behaviour from the rabid player-killers.

Your argument is moot.

 

[Maxmilian Czhilli]

While it is very easy to try and pass negative commentary on the morality of human players using out of games rules there is an easy litmus.

1.Look at computer games, then look at real life.
2.Look at a multiplayer game then look at real life.
3.Look at how you play (this) game(s) then look at real life.

1 - Do things happen by design in computer games that cannot and would not happen in real life? Yes.
2 - Is it acceptable in multiplayer games for players to kill each other? Yes.
3 - Have you ever killed the avatar of something that represents a human, be it npc or human controlled in a game (can't speak for everyone but the answer is likely a)? YES.

These are all thing that are morally and socially unacceptable in a real world context but are part of (this) game(s) by design.

So there you go, rather than bandying around buzzphrases like Q.E.D without really having a claim of any substance you can easily assess the precedent, context and reality of there being no sense of moral continuation from the real world to a computer game. It also demonstrates that there should there be any expectation of external/real world rules, morality or social behaviour applying. Even the way PVE content is played in ED morally supports the notion of PVP and players killing each other indiscriminately at the drop of a hat, it is literally how the game content is...

"I'm gonna boil you up".... etc.

Of course it may be easier to attack players rather than accept that reality of games, human nature is a funny old beast.

I have to agree.

These conversations often get bogged down in squabbles about morals, honour and what a person's play style says about their character outside game. The vast majority of it forms into, structurally unsound, wobbly towers of ill informed assumptions glued together with amateur psychology.

Unless you know somebody really well, it is very hard to get a good idea of why they act the way they do.

You can try and and ascribe motivations and intentions to a stranger in an internet spaceship game, but it's going to be mostly guess work. Anyone who has ever felt that someone has misunderstood who they are and why they do what they do, should take a moment to realise that they are almost certainly guilty of having misunderstood others.

I've seen comments about how use of the block list "demonises" certain play styles. Sure, there have been some posts that have been pretty harsh. But all the use of the block list says is, "I'd rather not be instanced with this player"; nothing more and nothing less. You cannot know the reason. Getting upset about why you are blocked is an exercise in self flagellation.

I have friends who will not play certain games with me. Apparently, I get too competitive and "nasty," so they don't enjoy the experience. I find their box set marathons boring and refuse to attend. We all understand that our socialising should be fun and nobody should feel forced to do stuff with others if they don't enjoy it.

It is not a stain on your character if someone prefers not to play with you. It just means you don't like the same things. Vive la difference!

 

[Morbad]

I think that about covers the main things which distinguish NPC behaviour from the rabid player-killers.

NPC behavior is hardly a good litmus test for plausibility.

 

[CMDR Ofan]

Your particular line of argument here is weak. You're trying to use NPC's as justification for indiscriminate player killing. Here's why that fails...

NPC's don't...

1) Indiscriminately murder every player ship all day every day (I believe there's a 'psycho NPC' every now and then bu they're rare)

2) Attack players inside a starport by repeatedly ramming into them and blocking them from docking at their assigned pad.

3) Attack players at starports by launching Reverb Cascade torps at them as they're trapped in the toaster rack then finish them off with other RNGineered weapons as they emerge weakened.

4) Attack players at starports by laying Reverb Cascade mines in and around the starport entrance

5) Camp at RNGineer bases and indiscriminately murder players

6) Specifically target any and all CG systems and interdict and gank players with vastly overpowered RNGineered ships

I think that about covers the main things which distinguish NPC behaviour from the rabid player-killers.

Your argument is moot.

Not as such I was using NPCs (a tiny part of my post) to reinforce an illustration of player interaction with the game (the largest by some way part of my post).

I'm not attempting to defend certain types of attack or label others as bad, I frankly don't care. I'm no Pvper, my skills are average. I can some days defend myself, others I get blown to bits but I don't get upset though as that is the essence of this game, ships blowing up ships.

I'm just making the point that real world morality is in no way any kind of measuring stick in a game world, the point is more a criticism of those that get salty over in game losses (seen as fair or unfair I care not) and start to attack the character of people in the real world or try and explain their stance on an in game loss by making comments that insult or disparage players. I know lots won't agree with it, that doesn't bother me I'm not here to convince anyone to change their mind

It is however ( to return to the obvious thrust of my post) a game, in this instance a game in which players murder npcs, npcs murder players and soon aliens will be murdering everyone. FD built in mechanics for players to kill players regardless of whether their ships are on par with each other or not so the concept of unfair PVP to me is moot (not to say that in any way I think it is good sport to kill new players who can barely dock, etc) but people actions in a game world with an entirely different set of moral mores has no bearing at all on their out of game personality - after all I am not a merciless bounty hunter in the real world and probably would not blow up someone's car without a seconds hesitation if I thought they had a parking fine which is standard for the game morality.

Which is what my posts have been addressing if you look at them wholly rather than singling out parts think of it as a reply to all the personal commentary people who don't like getting blown up bring to the forums (That person who killed me must be a maladjusted damaged child, and all the accompanying hogwash)- it was that type of comment I started this by replying to

 

[Genar-Hofoen]

Not as such I was using NPCs (a tiny part of my post) to reinforce an illustration of player interaction with the game (the largest by some way part of my post).

I'm not attempting to defend certain types of attack or label others as bad, I frankly don't care. I'm no Pvper, my skills are average. I can some days defend myself, others I get blown to bits but I don't get upset though as that is the essence of this game, ships blowing up ships.

I'm just making the point that real world morality is in no way any kind of measuring stick in a game world, the point is more a criticism of those that get salty over in game losses (seen as fair or unfair I care not) and start to attack the character of people in the real world or try and explain their stance on an in game loss by making comments that insult or disparage players. I know lots won't agree with it, that doesn't bother me I'm not here to convince anyone to change their mind

It is however ( to return to the obvious thrust of my post) a game, in this instance a game in which players murder npcs, npcs murder players and soon aliens will be murdering everyone. FD built in mechanics for players to kill players regardless of whether their ships are on par with each other or not so the concept of unfair PVP to me is moot (not to say that in any way I think it is good sport to kill new players who can barely dock, etc) but people actions in a game world with an entirely different set of moral mores has no bearing at all on their out of game personality - after all I am not a merciless bounty hunter in the real world and probably would not blow up someone's car without a seconds hesitation if I thought they had a parking fine which is standard for the game morality.

Which is what my posts have been addressing if you look at them wholly rather than singling out parts think of it as a reply to all the personal commentary people who don't like getting blown up bring to the forums (That person who killed me must be a maladjusted damaged child, and all the accompanying hogwash)- it was that type of comment I started this by replying to

Fair enough, and I largely agree with you.

I think what a lot of posters here are saying is that there's a difference between being blown up within the context and intended 'spirit of the game', and being blown up by a gang of Yahoos who are treating the game like it's Galaxy Arena.

Context and 'spirit of the game' :

Pirate player blows up an uncooperative trader : I think you'll find everyone is fine with this.
Bounty Hunter blows up a wanted pirate : I think you'll find everyone is also fine with this.

Those two above are examples of direct PvP which are quite obviously well within the intended context and 'spirit' of the game. There are a lot of forms of indirect PvP within the game to do with CG's and the background simulation.

Arranged direct PvP/duels between individuals or groups : I think everyone is also fine with this.

Yahoos, indiscriminately blowing up anything with a heartbeat : See my earlier post for examples of such. Add "deliberately travelling to a Guardian or Thargoid site and shooting down the Science!/Explorer ships" to my earlier list. Sad! Pretty much not what Frontier intend the game to be, but alas, in 3 years they've done absolutely nothing effective to discourage such behaviour. So the only viable option left for folks is the block function, and here we are today.

Frontier are saying they'll be introducing steps to try to discourage behaviour which isn't within 'the spirit of the game', so, we await these steps, some of which are going to be implemented when 2.4 becomes a thing we can all play. But 2.4 is probably quite a number of weeks away yet, so the block function is all that's there in order to alleviate for some players the probability of being blown up by a Yahoo.

 

[Kaa Mchorror]

The block feature just shows me that FD realize they don't really know what to do with C&P. Rather than take the boat load of development time to do it right we have this.

 

[Xenith]

NPC behavior is hardly a good litmus test for plausibility.

True, the NPCs are generally smarter.

 

[jasonbarron]

The block feature just shows me that FD realize they don't really know what to do with C&P. Rather than take the boat load of development time to do it right we have this.

Agreed. Pretty obvious conclusion to draw, actually. Toss the blocking mechanic into the room/blurt out some explanation/run like hell and turn the cell phone off.

Have fun with your c&p system, gang

 

[GreyAreaUK]

Agreed. Pretty obvious conclusion to draw, actually. Toss the blocking mechanic into the room/blurt out some explanation/run like hell and turn the cell phone off.

Have fun with your c&p system, gang

Or we could let them actually implement it and see how it goes rather than criticising it before it exists or its functional parameters are known.

Just a thought.

 

[Mohrgan]

The Block feature has been around since the release. The only thing that has changed is how we access it. With the improvements to the Comms. UI, a more streamlined method to apply it was included. That's it.