The Difference Between PvP and "Griefing"

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

The only one complaining about the BGS here is you...
Should I be ignoring the irony of you refusing to play BGS the way it's intended to be played and then complaining that it's not just a way for PVP to happen? "If you aren't doing it to begin with, then why are you complaining about it?"

Also: the game allows me to pick and choose. There's no reason for me not to. I've already told you multiple times. Solo/private impacting the BGS is not going away. The devs like it that way and they've said as much. It's a total waste of your energy to try to change that. Attempt to accomplish your goal of bringing more people into open in other ways. Think up ways to make the BGS minigame more fun so it doesn't bother you that you have to do it. Think up good frameworks to make PVP happen that don't require cannibalizing other communities. Etc.



Except he's telling people to go into open so he can shoot them, not telling people to get out of open if they don't like PVP. you reading this convo?

Im asking for players participating in PVP activities be susceptible to all pvp activity. Like I said, people left open so the wouldnt be involved with PVP.

And the only reason I brought it up is because I feel griefed if players attack my player faction without being able to see them since we are on the topic of griefing. It goes both ways. But apperantly griefing only applies to shooting others in open.

Pretty straight forward.

 

[Konnivar]

Except he's telling people to go into open so he can shoot them, not telling people to get out of open if they don't like PVP. you reading this convo?

You and I read this quote differently:

Then do go into open and dont complain about PVP. They are willing to put in the time. You arent.

I read this as "If you are entering open, don't complain when PvP happens."

You seem to have read this as "You should go to open and not complain about PvP"


Correct me if I'm wrong That90skid, but I'm assuming your statement was meant as the former.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

You and I read this quote differently:



I read this as "If you are entering open, don't complain when PvP happens."

You seem to have read this as "You should go to open and not complain about PvP"


Correct me if I'm wrong That90skid, but I'm assuming your statement was meant as the former.

Yes, if you willingly go into open knowing there is multicannons and lasers that can be fired at you at any given moment. Then the people that feel griefed did it to themselves.

Thats like running a red light on purpose knowing the consequences and then arguing about having to pay the fine.

 

[ALGOMATIC]

Bgs wars were supposed to be pvp central, fighting over a station with winged fights not engaging in grindfest wars of who can deliever more biowaste or who can farm mindless bots in separate groups. That's not bgs wars, its pathetic excuse for a gameplay.

Same thing apllies to PP. People are potato in this game and will do anything to avoid pvp where skills are required. Who can farm more npcs over 2 hours in separate modes? God forbid we meet each other and fight. Great gameplay!

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

Bgs wars were supposed to be pvp central, fighting over a station with winged fights not engagimg in grindfesr wars of who can deliver more biowaste or who can farm mindless bots in separate groups. That's not bgs wars, its pathetic excuse for a gameplay.

Same thing apllies to PP. People are potato in this game and will do anything to avoid pvp where skills are required. Who can farm more npcs over 2 hours in separate modes? God forbid ee meet each other and fight. Great gameplay!

100% agreed.

 

[UmbraRex]

I'd say it's more like "If you're in the kitchen willingly, don't complain that it's hot."

So you would rather that people not interested in PvP not play at all?

 

[ALGOMATIC]

So you would rather that people not interested in PvP not play at all?

They shouldn't engage in pvp related content than. Bgs wars and PP are supposed to be PvP content. Not grindfests.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

So you would rather that people not interested in PvP not play at all?

People can still explore, Run trade missions do whatever you want. You've already had 3 different game modes to chose from. This is like getting upset at PVPers killing each other in a world of warcraft PVP server while youre on a PVE server.

How many times does this argument come up. And its rendered invalid because you already have options to begin with.

 

[Jieun]

You and I read this quote differently:



I read this as "If you are entering open, don't complain when PvP happens."

You seem to have read this as "You should go to open and not complain about PvP"


Correct me if I'm wrong That90skid, but I'm assuming your statement was meant as the former.

Fair enough, guess there was a typo.

Im asking for players participating in PVP activities be susceptible to all pvp activity. Like I said, people left open so the wouldnt be involved with PVP.

And the only reason I brought it up is because I feel griefed if players attack my player faction without being able to see them since we are on the topic of griefing. It goes both ways. But apperantly griefing only applies to shooting others in open.

Pretty straight forward.

And I can understand why you dislike that, but either way, it's how the system is set up, and as I've said many times, it's not changing. Again: if you want to pull more people into open/pvping, which I respect as a goal, think up different and better ways to do it that haven't already been shot down by the devs repeatedly.

 

[Konnivar]

So you would rather that people not interested in PvP not play at all?

Don't jump to irrational conclusions; PvP is one of the easiest to avoid activities in the game. You can play in solo, Private Group, or simply avoid high traffic systems while in Open and your chances of encountering a player with malicious intent is significantly decreased if not eliminated.

 

[Doktor Molotov]

Im asking for players participating in PVP activities be susceptible to all pvp activity. Like I said, people left open so the wouldnt be involved with PVP.

And the only reason I brought it up is because I feel griefed if players attack my player faction without being able to see them since we are on the topic of griefing. It goes both ways. But apperantly griefing only applies to shooting others in open.
.

Well, yeah. Griefing suggests some form of harrassment is going on. It just sounds like you're frustrated that your player faction is losing influence. You aren't exactly helpless.

If they were doing this in open, uh, how would you know? By which I mean, how do you know the ships flying around your system aren't helping your faction, or minding their own business? Or that they really are in open but the way the instancing works means they're actually Russians that aren't ever going to be instanced to you in the first place? You'd have almost have half a point if this game wasn't p2p.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

Fair enough, guess there was a typo.



And I can understand why you dislike that, but either way, it's how the system is set up, and as I've said many times, it's not changing. Again: if you want to pull more people into open/pvping, which I respect as a goal, think up different and better ways to do it that haven't already been shot down by the devs repeatedly.

"There are some changes coming that will affect the background sim - I'm not sure they will be what you expect!
More seriously, we are looking at this beyond 2.4." - David Braben

https://www.reddit.com/r/EliteDange...m_anything_david_braben_obe_fdev_ceo/dg43bse/

Sounds like changes are coming to me.

After 2.4, Core changes. Oh baby.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

Well, yeah. Griefing suggests some form of harrassment is going on. It just sounds like you're frustrated that your player faction is losing influence. You aren't exactly helpless.

If they were doing this in open, uh, how would you know? By which I mean, how do you know the ships flying around your system aren't helping your faction, or minding their own business? Or that they really are in open but the way the instancing works means they're actually Russians that aren't ever going to be instanced to you in the first place? You'd have almost have half a point if this game wasn't p2p.

Just like you see traders and fighters at CG's, You see someone pulling your cops or you see someone delivering UA bombs with a manifest scanner, you know that thing no one uses. You can take them out.

What im mostly upset about is the time required to combat the BGS. Not everyone has the same amount of time. People just win by default by time alone. Or exploits in the guys case.

He kills Faction A ships in every system around but one. Getting a negative influence.

Then you keep crimes on go to a system where you arent wanted, Faction A Cops interdict you. They attack you but you have crimes on. And since you're not wanted the police become wanted and you collect endless bounties of police and clean AI.

The only way to keep up with that is to do it yourself. And for a PLAYER GROUP, that would mean breaking the pact colonia has with each other and go to war. To stop someone that has no player faction to retaliate against. Once again. Hes sitting in a skill boosted cutter in private and solo. With no Risk and All Reward.

People with experience in this game have seen this coming for a very long time. Which is why the Hotel Cali thread exists in the first place. If there wasnt any issues. There wouldn't have been calls for balancing to begin with.

So yes, Just the same as people feel about getting "griefed" in open. People can feel "griefed" about the BGS too. However, I share no interest in it. Because believe it or not, as much as PVP is imbalanced in this game. Its a lot more balanced than the BGS and how it spans across the game modes.

It started out as a good Idea. But then when Powerplay and Player factions were introduced as the game evolved. Balancing didnt evolve with it. And here we are.

 

[Jieun]

"There are some changes coming that will affect the background sim - I'm not sure they will be what you expect!
More seriously, we are looking at this beyond 2.4." - David Braben

https://www.reddit.com/r/EliteDange...m_anything_david_braben_obe_fdev_ceo/dg43bse/

Sounds like changes are coming to me.

After 2.4, Core changes. Oh baby.

Yes. And I've said that you were right that BGS could use changes and would probably receive them. But I sincerely doubt that it will have much to do with open vs solo/PG, given the devs' past statements.

But hey, if I'm wrong, feel free to rub it in my face.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

Yes. And I've said that you were right that BGS could use changes and would probably receive them. But I sincerely doubt that it will have much to do with open vs solo/PG, given the devs' past statements.

But hey, if I'm wrong, feel free to rub it in my face.

I dont want to rub it on your face. And I dont want to have the HAHA im right youre wrong. All I and many others want is a level playing field for everyone. This goes for RNGErs as well as the BGS.

Were all on the same side. We love elite dangerous.

 

[UmbraRex]

People can still explore, Run trade missions do whatever you want. You've already had 3 different game modes to chose from. This is like getting upset at PVPers killing each other in a world of warcraft PVP server while youre on a PVE server.

How many times does this argument come up. And its rendered invalid because you already have options to begin with.

Don't jump to irrational conclusions; PvP is one of the easiest to avoid activities in the game. You can play in solo, Private Group, or simply avoid high traffic systems while in Open and your chances of encountering a player with malicious intent is significantly decreased if not eliminated.

Some people say that open should be the only mode. (in this very thread as it happens) So, yes, my conclusion that hardcore PvPers would rather people who prefer to avoid PvP simply not play is valid.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

Some people say that open should be the only mode. (in this very thread as it happens) So, yes, my conclusion that hardcore PvPers would rather people who prefer to avoid PvP simply not play is valid.

Yes, But even I know thats not going to happen. All that really needs to happen is remove the ability to effect others from solo and private. People are literally leaving so they cannot be effected or "griefed". So they shouldn't be able to effect or "grief" anyone else from those groups.

PVEers arent effected. They arent going out of their way to EFFECT/Grief others anyways. Literally nothing would change for them. The only people I see against this ; are the people knowingly participating in the PVP part of the BGS. Which in tail is no risk high reward. And whoever has the most time wins by default.

 

[Mercy Killing]

Agreed.

Players have options, good choices BTW and all are unhappy. A mistake made right away on the drawing board.

SOLO was all we needed.

See what I did there? Both statements equally valid.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

See what I did there? Both statements equally valid.

Not really. I can still UA bomb a station within solo and effect you on the other side.

Check mate.

 

[kofeyh]

Not really. I can still UA bomb a station within solo and effect you on the other side.

I thought the idea was to get frontier's attention, not squabble like, what was it you said so eloquently at some point? man-children? So, what has been established over 378+ posts is that people, amazingly enough cannot agree and are endlessly redefing terms, just as I tried to point out here.

A percentage of the player base does not fundamentally accept the potential for undesired combat in Open, and either remain in Open anyway and vociferously complain if attacked, or move to a Player Group but still vociferously complain about those attacks. A percentage of the player base has long since moved on and are in private groups and don't fundamentally care anymore. And a subsection has never cared and have forever been in Solo.

You can argue the rights of anyone, to do (or not do) anything, in any mode, as much as you like, but this is irrelevant; we have none. Frontier elected to have the BGS as a universal model, but across 3 game modes on (now) three distinct platforms. And two of the three independent platforms are 'walled gardens', so the entire sodding argument is moot.

The ToS define what is acceptable behaviour; it does not define whether combat in-game is acceptable use of the infrastructure. Because in open, it is. However, this may be a moral concern, and this is what Laws are for. The partial solution, is to improve the Law. But there is no solution for people. You can't patch, upgrade or rebuild people. At best, you can accommodate, but at varying degrees of success. As usual, both sides refuse to accept they have to change, but demand the other side does; which results in a stalemate. And the usual multi-page diatribes abound.

Here's the thing. Frontier cannot fix people. They can only (attempt to) fix the game. Expecting the developer to solve people, being people, is rather the challenge, but it really can't be done. Frontier, in essence, has to develop the game in spite of people, as much as it does for them.

Frontier cannot fix everything. They cannot fix people. They cannot solve the walled gardens. It's not simple. Don't @ me.