The Difference Between PvP and "Griefing"

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

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; Frontier elected to have the BGS as a universal. And there are three independant platforms, so the entire sodding argument is moot.

The ToS define what is acceptable behaviour; it does not define what is morally acceptable. This is what the Law is 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.

Lastly, there are three platforms. Even if three commanders are in the same System, are all in Open, across all three platforms, they will never see each other, cannot interact with each other and have at most an indirect impact. Frontier cannot fix everything. They cannot fix people. They cannot solve the walled gardens. It's not simple. Don't @ me.

First of all @

Second, EVERY Developer balances the game "in spite of people". Here is a good Transparent balancing video from league of legends. Its a really good watch in how they conduct their-selves for transparency and balancing issues within the game. http://nexus.leagueoflegends.com/2017/09/riot-pls-leveling-ip-and-rewards/ Rewarding players for their time.

Doubt you'll watch it though since you know everything.

I have to ask. Why the attitude towards me? Its been nothing but that since Ive seen you on these forums. I can sense some personal hatred here. And I cant understand why.

Its a shame cause im a pretty nice guy.

Not once have I ever told someone to "seek help".

 

[kofeyh]

I have to ask. Why the attitude towards me?

I am discussing the game, not you, friend. As such I'll pop you into the forum ignore list because I'm here to discuss the game, not be dragged into personal squabbles every time I reply to any comment at all. Fly safe.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

I am discussing the game, not you, friend. As such I'll pop you into the block list because I'm here to discuss the game, not be dragged into personal squabbles every time I reply to any comment at all. Fly safe.

Then dont attack someone personally. Pretty simple. Cause I've never done it to you.

 

[thirstyfish]

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

Check mate.

And anyone can haul meta-alloys to counter it in any mode.

No check mate.

 

[GreyAreaUK]

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

You'd be highly unlikely to stop it happening in Open either, unless you knew exactly who was going to do it and exactly when they were going to do it.

Moot point.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

You'd be highly unlikely to stop it happening in Open either, unless you knew exactly who was going to do it and exactly when they were going to do it.

Moot point.

Nope wrong once again. Our player faction has people in it all the time. And our bases are checked daily. We are alerted by other members in our group if we dont see anyone we recognize.

And you can scan them with a Manifest scanner.

Moot point unmooted.

But no one really uses a manifest scanner anymore. Not even pirates, by the time you get the scan off chances are they are already loggi

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

And anyone can haul meta-alloys to counter it in any mode.

No check mate.

Tell that to Ollobains on reddit. He has a large group specifically tailored for UA bombing. And hes pretty dang good at it too. Hes been pretty nice not bombing CGS.

 

[Wolf Starslayer]

All I see in this thread is some trying to disenfranchise the game choices of others. All players should be able to equally effect the BGS; and that's how it is. They paid the same for the game as you did, you do not get to dictate or change the game design.

You don't get to force people to play in open and you don't get to detract from their game if they don't.

 

[CylonSurfer]

Hello everyone!

This thread is probably going to be a long one, since much of the discussion on the forums is about "griefing". So let's dive into it!


So what is griefing?

Griefing in Elite is the motion of killing a player that doesn't consent to it.

- CMDR StarfireIX

No it's not. Griefing is the act of harassing another player be it in the form of repeated abusive comms messages, repeated killing or some other form of repeatable act aimed at one individual with the soul goal of harassment.

Having your ships destroyed once, by a commander who didn't bother to chat to you and didn't ask for your permission is not an act of griefing. FYI - In 'Open' commanders do not need your permission to destroy your ship should they wish to.

Anyone playing in 'Open' has consented to possible PVP interactions, it's not against the rules and as such there is no such thing as non-consentual PVP in 'Open'. If you are in that game mode you accept the risk that you may be on the receiving end of a commanders weapon fire.

(I don't actively look for or engage in PVP & play in 'Open' 100% of my game time and have since day 1)

 

[Arkadi]

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!

Yes!

Affecting BGS or Powerplay from Solo/Private is taking away the possibiltiy of meaningful combat interaction. It limits the game to a singelplayer hauling / NPC-killing competition.

It would be perfectly ok to be able to earn money, Naval- and Faction reputation in Solo/Private umolested from other players interaction.
BUT: Minor Faction Influence should not be affected from actions in those "private" modes!

Also it would be perfectly ok to be abel to earn merits for powerplay to maintain ones rank or get access to the modules in the "restricted" modes of Solo/Private.
BUT: handing in merits in Solo/Private should not affect the Powers undermining-, expansion- or fortification ratings!

This would mean that the three game modes were not equal anymore, what seems to be a religious mantra at FD.
BUT: It would make a lot more sense in the context of player communities competition and evolving gameplay.


TLDR:
BGS-work and Powerplay should be activites in OPEN only (and thus be subject to combat pvp gameplay in a non-grieving way - to make this not totally off topic).
Now I gonna hide and run... I know I did not post anything new and the singel-player warriors will be just around the corner to throw stones at me...

 

[GreyAreaUK]

Bgs wars were supposed to be pvp central,

[Citation needed​]

 

[Stigbob]

No it's not. Griefing is the act of harassing another player be it in the form of repeated abusive comms messages, repeated killing or some other form of repeatable act aimed at one individual with the soul goal of harassment.

Having your ships destroyed once, by a commander who didn't bother to chat to you and didn't ask for your permission is not an act of griefing. FYI - In 'Open' commanders do not need your permission to destroy your ship should they wish to.

Anyone playing in 'Open' has consented to possible PVP interactions, it's not against the rules and as such there is no uch thing as non-consentual PVP in 'Open'. If you are in that game mode you accept the risk that you may be on the receiving end of a commanders weapon fire.

(I don't actively look for or engage in PVP & play in 'Open' 100% of my game time and have since day 1)

Griefing's entirely subjective, as is everyone's opinion of what is and isn't acceptable or even what PVP is. Different players also have different playstyles and preferences which are far more likely to influence what they do than anything in the forum.

Everyone's right from their own perspective, just adapt the game to your own preferences through mode choice, blocking ship+loadout.

You can't alter other people's choices, just accept them.

 

[PeLucheuh]

All I see in this thread is some trying to disenfranchise the game choices of others. All players should be able to equally effect the BGS; and that's how it is. They paid the same for the game as you did, you do not get to dictate or change the game design.

You don't get to force people to play in open and you don't get to detract from their game if they don't.

Yes it is a 4 years old game design obviously incompatible with the competitive aspect of Powerplay and CG and the risk/reward concept design.
In other words : you can equally affect the BGS from any mode without facing the same risks (functionality).

Game mechanics are evolving but not th game design and Frontier is being smart to not make communication about it anymore in order to keep people playing the game.

Hopefully 2.4 will change that and Frontier will finally make a strong statement about the contradiction between game design and fonctionality.

 

[Stigbob]

Yes!

Affecting BGS or Powerplay from Solo/Private is taking away the possibiltiy of meaningful combat interaction. It limits the game to a singelplayer hauling / NPC-killing competition.

It would be perfectly ok to be able to earn money, Naval- and Faction reputation in Solo/Private umolested from other players interaction.
BUT: Minor Faction Influence should not be affected from actions in those "private" modes!

Also it would be perfectly ok to be abel to earn merits for powerplay to maintain ones rank or get access to the modules in the "restricted" modes of Solo/Private.
BUT: handing in merits in Solo/Private should not affect the Powers undermining-, expansion- or fortification ratings!

This would mean that the three game modes were not equal anymore, what seems to be a religious mantra at FD.
BUT: It would make a lot more sense in the context of player communities competition and evolving gameplay.


TLDR:
BGS-work and Powerplay should be activites in OPEN only.
Now I gonna hide and run... I know I did not post anything new and the singel-player warriors will be just around the corner to throw stones at me...

PVP is the least effective method of playing the BGS.

 

[DukeIronHand]

What is this thread about again?

 

[Dietger]

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.

I advocate OPEN over any other mode.
My reasoning, switching modes back and forth to avoid OPEN and its imminent PvP is cheating in my opinion. And if you like, griefing.
Make no mistake, if you prefer to play SOLO or with your friends in a private group, be my guest. Nothing wrong with it. As I said before, we have 3 valid options to access Elite all three equal side by side.

Now, if this forum is by any means representative, it appearers Frontier created a mess, everyone it seems, perfectly unhappy about how Commanders have not the right choices at hand to access their game. How comes?

I doubt Solo players need or want anything beside themself, at peace with Elite and their way to play. Commanders playing with friends privately, either PvP or cooperative had their choice as well.
Now who remains for OPEN play?
Since ALL are in one group, playing OPEN, free for all, entering here you should be aware about whom you play with. I fail to see any other way, no matter how I put it, PVP in OPEN is a fundamental part, FOR ALL, in this group. Obviously the game needs more tailoring in its player versus player part. Griefing is subjective, C&P will only work over time and wont stop anything or anyone from griefing, nor will it stop harassments from the hand of commanders willing to ruin your game. Issues have to be addressed.

OPEN remains dangerous and I am glad it is!
In reflecting of the said above, in the light of constant caterwauling, accusations, complaint, discontent and disaffection of some, I say, we where better off with OPEN standalone.

Playing in OPEN? Be aware!


Fly safe Commanders and check six
o7

 

[Snarfbuckle]

The only reason a lot of regular interdictions in space feels like griefing is because of the poor balance in consequences.
While open is just that, OPEN it is not meant to be PRIMARILY PVP but also regular co-operation between players in a sandbox. Unfortunately we still lack better TOOLS for that ingame.

- At BEST a trader ship MIGHT be able to run if they suspect to be interdicted at EVERY jump.
- At worst they are hit and dead before even having time to align after interdiction
- Criminal acts are hardly punishing
- Bounties means nothing
- System security status in open might as well be called Anarchy systems all over
- Response time from law enforcement is laughable in most systems
- No faction status impact on killing a player working for X faction while we loose faction standing towards an NPC working for a faction
- Stations make no effort to call security of clearly wanted CMDRs
- Bounties are not a factor for manhunts, fleet's and factions blocking CMDR's to land, or hunt them.

 

[Arkadi]

PVP is the least effective method of playing the BGS.

True, this is why the other more effective ways (PVE bounty hunting, micro trading, selling exploration data) should not be allowed to affect faction influence in the "private" modes. Also combat seems to be a coded and intended feature of the game. It should have a use aside from "random grieving" ...

It's ok that PvP is not the most effective way to do things (for some it's the most fun way), but it should be also have at least some use. As it is now, PvP is purely a gimmick.

 

[Stigbob]

What is this thread about again?

Temporary accommodation on the Western coast of the US.

 

[GreyAreaUK]

True, this is why the other more effective ways (bounty hunting, micro trading, selling exploration data) should not be allowed in the "private" modes.

You pretty much just excluded 95% of the game.

Not going to happen.

And I remind you, many people on consoles cannot play in anything other than Solo due to the limitations of their Sony/Microsoft accounts.