The Difference Between PvP and "Griefing"

[Wolf Starslayer]

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.

I'll go by the evidence and so far every official statement made has said they will be keeping all modes and all actions taken have been in line with that.

If you have any statement from frontier that they will change it please share, if not I'll go by the evidence rather than wishes and rumour-mongering thank you.

 

[Stigbob]

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.

Switch modes to open and cash in after landing.

 

[Arkadi]

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.

I edited my post above to make my intention clearer. It's not my wish to exclude players. I think it would make more sense to play competitive parts of the game in a game-mode where players can actually see each other.

About consoles and Mac - sure I know - these are technical limitations. There is nothing to do about that seperation ... yet.

I'll stop on this topic now since it belongs to Hotel California and has been discussed to death and back again there already. Seem I can't resist beating a dead horse any now and then :|

 

[GreyAreaUK]

About consoles and Mac - sure I know - these are technical limitations. There is nothing to do about that seperation ... yet.

There's no reason Mac users can't play in Open. What they currently can't do is buy Horizons, due to the OpenGL limitations.

 

[PeLucheuh]

I'll go by the evidence and so far every official statement made has said they will be keeping all modes and all actions taken have been in line with that.

If you have any statement from frontier that they will change it please share, if not I'll go by the evidence rather than wishes and rumour-mongering thank you.

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/216887-The-Open-v-Solo-v-Groups-thread-IV-Hotel-California

Spoiler

Originally Posted by Michael Brookes (Source) Originally

Posted by mosh_er (Source)
Hi Micheal

I know you said that solo/group and open will always use the same universe, can you also say that there will be no specific perks in playing in one mode over another? i.e bigger profit from trading in open or bigger bounties?

None are planned at the moment.

Michael

Originally Posted by Sandro Sammarco (Source) Hello Commander Demiga!

Originally Posted by Demiga (Source)




Seriously, it annoys people. Solo has every right to do community goals - Yes, I get that there is an "unfair advantage" for solo players working a community goal VS. an open player.

Its a very easy fix by FDEV - Make it so that when a Solo/Private Group player turns in a bond for 30k (example) they get 30k in cash, but it only counts as..15k towards the community goal

Wheras the Open players can turn in the same 30k Bond, Receive the same 30k in cash, but it counts as 30k towards the community goal.

Its not so much about not letting this group do that with this, but just make the values weighted differently. Open, it is much harder to make that 30k than it is in solo, so it should be worth x times as much for the goal.

Is this a viable solution for anyone?

For anyone that can see my signature, I am an avid player of Solo/Group - but I really do hear, understand, and mostly agree with what the solo players are saying. I do want to start playing in open at some point. If anyone can give me a good reason as to why this wont work or help, then please explain...

P.S. I say very easy fix by FDEV, but honestly I have no idea. The concept is simple though

Edit - Sorry if anyone was offended by my tone or by the wording I used - had just read a very.....anger inducing thread about completely removing solo mode - Wont happen again - also - I want to reiterate that I fully support both SOLO and OPEN modes, and I believe there can be a great solution so everyone is happy in the end - aka this solution

Edit 2 - Again - I need to reiterate to everyone - This doesnt hurt anyone's personal finances, everyone will still make the same amount when they turn in a bond, everyone will still rank up within the community goal the same (top 70%, top 40%, top 15% etc) - The only thing this does is add a separate advantage to players who want to play in open - This allows them to affect an overall goal better than a solo player. This goal would be a NEW feature added in game if something like this goes through - It doesnt hurt the "advantage" of playing solo either - It really is a WIN-WIN compromise - I believe and fully support all 3 modes....

This is something that I'm considering.

There won't be any changes in the immediate future (our time is fairly booked up right now), but on face value it certainly seems plausible and maybe reasonable to me. I'll need to chew it over some more, obviously. I *believe* a change like this would be possible though (again, I'd have to verify that with team server).

Comments on this would be welcome.

Oh, but obviously, Commander Demiga, let's try and keep the temperature at a reasonable level . Everyone has the right to voice their opinion, as long as they do so politely.

 

[stormyuk]

About consoles and Mac - sure I know - these are technical limitations. There is nothing to do about that seperation ... yet.

I doubt it is going to, at least not this generation on PS4 and Xbox One (even if we got cross-play).

Bottom line is that to play in Open/PG/CQC people on Sony and MS platforms need to pay a subscription, if they don't Solo is the only option. It would be a hard pill to swallow for FDev to turn around to all those Solo console players and say, sorry you now do not have the game you paid for at retail, not impossible sure but the we have removed some features so you best give Sony/MS more cash if you want them back wont go down well. I personally love Open and am happy to have that as part of my PS+ subscription, not everyone is the same.

Edit: Reading PeLucheuh's quote of Sandy above seems like a totally plausible solution though as its not *excluding* Solo players.

 

[Arkadi]

How I miss old PS3 free multiplayer! This was Sony at its best. It's a shame they went the Microsoft road...

 

[DukeIronHand]

Temporary accommodation on the Western coast of the US.

Ah. Thank you.
Now it makes more sense.

 

[Madrax573]

The difference between PvP and Griefing?

Simple answer.

The only difference is how YOU perceive it and no other.

 

[PeLucheuh]

The difference between PvP and Griefing?

Simple answer.

The only difference is how YOU perceive it and no other.

But the perception should be bind to the situation based on a pragmatic approach and not based on feelings. A player who feel griefed does not mean a griefing situation.

The important question are :
- What is the situation ?
- What are the game rules/functionalies in this situation ?
- Do i have solution to avoid this situation ?

As an example :
Station ganking is not a griefing situation at first because it can be easily avoided by simply going under the speed limit BUT it becomes a griefing situation if there is another CMDRs using force shell cannon to push the ship over the speed limit (exploit of game mechanic).

Also PvP != griefing : a player being destroyed can feel griefed whether it comes from a player or a NPC. Is it a griefing situation though ?

 

[Theodrid]

Jesus H, some of you 'stop soloists and PG players doing this and that' guys need to lay off the onionhead.

Let's follow this to it's theoretical conclusion for a second, it all happens, solo and PG players can no longer :-

- Influence the BGS
- Influence powerplay
- Take part in CG's
- Take part in the Thargoid story
- 'myriad of other things'

Right, well done, now are you lot going to refund all these guys and gals that don't want to or can't play in open as you've just taken away 30% of the game they paid as much as you for? Not to mention instancing, cross platform, time zones and an awful lot of other factors that make the 'hiders influencing BGS, I can't shoot them' argument one of the most ridiculously short sighted, ignorant and illogical positions on these boards

 

[CylonSurfer]

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.

No it's not - it's as black and white as my post. Griefing is not killing a player - it is 'in game' bullying or harassment of some type. Get over it, being killed by a player does not equate to that despite how much some of you like to ham up or over dramatise being killed by a player. Now if said player then followed you around continually killing you, ramming you, sending you abuse over comms etc - then you have a case of griefing.

Do people feel bad if their ship gets blown up by another player? Some might, but it still doesn't make it griefing... peoples feelings have nothing to do with definitions for terms such as 'griefing'. It is not subjective nor is it open to debate no matter how much some of you may think it is or want it to be. The fact that this game is Elite Dangerous and not one of the thousands of other online titles out there does not change what the act of griefing is or its definition. If you don't like being killed then that is fine, but call it what it is - bad luck - do not call it griefing.

There is no such thing as 'consentual PVP' or 'non-consentual PVP' in open (as much as some of you would like there to be), just PVP which can happen at any time or by arrangement, so you may as well get over that as well.

Stop with this spin doctor nonsense.

 

[Stigbob]

No it's not - it black and white as was my post. Griefing is not killing a player - it is 'in game' bullying or harassment of some type. Get over it, being killed by a player does not equate to that despite how much some of you like to ham up or over dramatise being killed by a player.

There's nothing for me to get over I like PVP and I've no objections to getting blown up. I (personally) don't consider any PVP to be griefing.

I also don't attack noobs or the defenceless as I'm aware it's no challenge for me and the recipient might not appreciate it. That's because I respect what other people want from the game, and their opinions on it.

Personally I dislike station griefers and cheats as I think they add nothing positive that I want, so I block them.

Hows that for a complete lack of drama.

Do people feel bad if their ship gets blown up by another player? Some might, but it still doesn't make it griefing... peoples feelings have nothing to do with definitions for terms such as griefing. It is not subjective nor is it open to debate no matter how much some of you may think it is. The fact that this game is Elite Dangerous and not one of the thousands of other online titles out there does not change what the act of griefing is or its definition. If you don't like being killed then that is fine, but call it what it is - bad luck - do not call it griefing.

That's just your subjective and incorrect opinion, based on the assumption that I think all PVP is griefing.

Have you mixed posters up ?.

There is no such thing as 'consentual PVP' (as much as some of you would like there to be), just PVP which can happen at any time or by arrangement, so you may as well get over that as well.

Yes there is, you see a ship you open comms and issue a challenge if the challenge is accepted what you've got there is consensual PVP.

You should try it, opponents who are ready willing and able are loads of fun. Also if you are low on re-buy or have data you need you can agree terms such as shields only or hull to 50% win.

Stop with this spin doctor nonsense.

You have no control over what I say or do in the forum or the game, like it or lump it you can't effect it, learn to live with it.

 

[CylonSurfer]

T

That's just your subjective and incorrect opinion, based on the assumption that I think all PVP is griefing.

Have you mixed posters up ?.

Did I mix up posters? No. You replied to my post which stated that the act of simply killing a player is not griefing. You disagreed and said it was subjective when it isn't (What else is someone going to take away from that other than to presume you are person who wishes that being killed in this game could be clased as griefing?). There is an accepted popular culture definition as to what griefing in online games is, one persons feeling about getting blown up in Elite Dangerous does not change that on any level other than their own personal point of view - which has no bearing on the accepted definition of what griefing actually is.

You can write what you wish on this forum, I'm happy as are you, to do the same. The spin doctor comment wasn't aimed at you in particular, but those who are attempting to 'spin' being blown up by another player into something it's not.

 

[Stealthie]

Jesus H, some of you 'stop soloists and PG players doing this and that' guys need to lay off the onionhead.

Let's follow this to it's theoretical conclusion for a second, it all happens, solo and PG players can no longer :-

- Influence the BGS
- Influence powerplay
- Take part in CG's
- Take part in the Thargoid story
- 'myriad of other things'

Right, well done, now are you lot going to refund all these guys and gals that don't want to or can't play in open as you've just taken away 30% of the game they paid as much as you for? Not to mention instancing, cross platform, time zones and an awful lot of other factors that make the 'hiders influencing BGS, I can't shoot them' argument one of the most ridiculously short sighted, ignorant and illogical positions on these boards

Let's face it, regardless of any superficial justifications, the real reason for most of these "proposals" is simply to force people to become cannon-fodder for PvPers.

Pretty sure that FDev are smart enough to see them for what they are though.

 

[Stigbob]

Did I mix up posters? No. You replied to my post which stated that the act of simply killing a player is not griefing. You disagreed and said it was subjective. What else is someone going to take away from that? Maybe that you infact do believe that killing a player is griefing because thats exactly the message you gave, hence my response.

No, I didn't agree and I didn't disagree. I was explaining that there are as many personal opinions on griefing as there are individual players, or to put it another way it's entirely subjective and any attempt to define it is an exercise in futility.

 

[CylonSurfer]

Let's face it, regardless of any superficial justifications, the real reason for most of these "proposals" is simply to force people to become cannon-fodder for PvPers.

Pretty sure that FDev are smart enough to see them for what they are though.

Lets face it, those who get offended by being blown up in a game which allows it are just like those people who play 'Snakes and Ladders' but refuse to drop down the board when they land on a snake.

I don't agree with griefing on any level, but PVP is a) not griefing and b) is part of the open mode of this game. When in open you have consented to the risk of it happening, like that or not. I don't engage in PVP or look for it, but when it finds me I accept the consequences and don't need to call it by any other name that what it is - bad luck on that occassion.

No, I didn't agree and I didn't disagree. I was explaining that there are as many personal opinions on griefing as there are individual players, or to put it another way it's entirely subjective and any attempt to define it is an exercise in futility.

Not at all - there is already a definition for the term. It is not subjective. Peoples personal opinions are just that, they are not and have no impact of what the term actually means.

 

[Crank Larson]

No it's not - it black and white as was my post. Griefing is not killing a player - it is 'in game' bullying or harassment of some type.

Of some type. That is where the subjectivity comes into it. What you consider griefing, others may not. Personally, I consider very little to be griefing - the only thing that qualifies, in my book, is the repeated harassment of a player by another one. A single incident, however disappointing to the "victim", cannot possibly be called "griefing". The only exception to that is if game mechanics have been exploited.

Very few things in life are black and white. That this subject has created hundreds of threads, none of which have come to agreement between the disparate viewpoints, rather proves that the subject is a very grey area.

EDIT: lol, it appears that my definition of griefing matches yours. But it doesn't match everyone's, and that is why it becomes subjective.

 

[DaggerSnake]

PvP: Players playing Elite. I'm a pirate. I'm defending my System/Power. I'm Blue or Red in a CQC match. I have an ingame reason of my own to attack you CMDR.

Griefing: I know this will upset a player on the other side of the screen, ha ha ha ha. The game is irrelevant, I just want to generate a reaction outside the game.

 

[Stigbob]

Of some type. That is where the subjectivity comes into it. What you consider griefing, others may not. Personally, I consider very little to be griefing - the only thing that qualifies, in my book, is the repeated harassment of a player by another one. A single incident, however disappointing to the "victim", cannot possibly be called "griefing". The only exception to that is if game mechanics have been exploited.

Very few things in life are black and white. That this subject has created hundreds of threads, none of which have come to agreement between the disparate viewpoints, rather proves that the subject is a very grey area.

EDIT: lol, it appears that my definition of griefing matches yours. But it doesn't match everyone's, and that is why it becomes subjective.

Yep, it's like harassment people mention it all the time (even FDEV) in relation to the game. I think you can't harass someone in a game at all, except by using comms in a naughty way but that's not really gameplay related.