New policy on player kills in private groups?

[Stealthie]

Setting aside the obvious issue of whether or not people get their ships restored, and get teleported back to their pre-rebuy location, the OP raises an interesting point which might not be completely apparent.

I'd say the most interesting issue is whether FDev are actively "enforcing" the gameplay types specified by PGs.

Unless I'm mistaken, there's no formal way to create a "PvE group".
You just create a multiplayer group and then request people adhere to certain standards while in it.
And then it's up to FDev to decide what, if anything, should be done for the targets of people who fail to adhere to those standards.

If this is becoming an issue, maybe FDev need to formalise the process for starting a PG by allowing creators to select from a list of things that are allowed/banned in a PG - perhaps similar to how you can select gameplay types when starting/looking for a Squadron?

With that in place, FDev wouldn't need to deal with problems "on a case by case basis" and could, instead, simply make judgements based on whether something had happened which contravened the specified criteria for a PG.

 

[Oopsie Daisy]

Imo, FDev should only be reimbursing people due to dying from glitches and anything else that can be fairly attributed to fdev's coding. Arbitrary PG rules should be irrelevant.

 

[biot]

What it means is that they've given themselves leeway enough to determine if an action violates the EULA; it's practically impossible, and completely unfeasable to write a EULA that covers every single instance/scenario of say harrassment. Thus, the umbrella term.

It's not something unusual to Frontier and you'll likely find similar wording in most (all) EULA.

Precisely this. It is actually against their interests to get too specific about which scenarios are judged to be in violation of the EULA or TOS as it reduces their room for manoeuvre. Paige's message linked in the OP is a perfect example of this - all courses of action are on the table but no commitment is made regarding when/if they will be applied. The EULA isn't a Bill of Rights for the player and it unwise to regard it as such.

 

[Stealthie]

Imo, FDev should only be reimbursing people due to dying from glitches and anything else that can be fairly attributed to fdev's coding. Arbitrary PG rules should be irrelevant.

I guess that'd depend on whether FDev support people's right to define the "rules" in a PG.

Personally, I suspect they'd have to.
After all, if they don't, they'd find themselves receiving complaints from all the people who've been "unfairly" kicked from a PG for doing things that contravene the PG's "rules".

Ultimately, I think there should be a multiplayer PvE option for ED so I'd have to support FDev's support of those PGs.

 

[DarkPaladin]

All that means is griefers have no real code of conduct they're just reserving the right to screw with any player at any time for any reason.

FTFY

 

[Oopsie Daisy]

I guess that'd depend on whether FDev support people's right to define the "rules" in a PG.

Personally, I suspect they'd have to.
After all, if they don't, they'd find themselves receiving complaints from all the people who've been "unfairly" kicked from a PG for doing things that contravene the PG's "rules".

Ultimately, I think there should be a multiplayer PvE option for ED so I'd have to support FDev's support of those PGs.

Omg lol not at all. What a snowflake answer.

What people do in PGs is their own business as is what the PG owner does. It's like being kicked from a dungeon group, a raid group, a BF5 squad, e.t.c. You may not like it, you may decide to whine about it, but it's not the dev's problem.

 

[Chaparral]

I've ranted about this on other threads. Fleetcom is essentially has built a PVE server, and FDEV (based on the OP), is supporting this model.

If this is true, FDEV should probably extend this service to all PVE PGs including all of the Mobius PGs.

The problem I have with this is the underlying acknowledgement that large numbers of players want a social PVE experience, but you have to belong to a special club to get it.

I believe all players, whether or not they belong to a special PG club, deserves access to a PVE experiences with a high likliehood of social interaction.

Surprise surprise, an MMO is a form of social media. It's really too bad that there is no defined Open server PVE experience in ED. A HUGE missed opportunity. I don't think FDEV really understood the core features of MMOs when they built ED.

 

[Ethaidan]

I've ranted about this on other threads. Fleetcom is essentially has built a PVE server, and FDEV (based on the OP), is supporting this model.

If this is true, FDEV should probably extend this service to all PVE PGs including all of the Mobius PGs.

The problem I have with this is the underlying acknowledgement that large numbers of players want a social PVE experience, but you have to belong to a special club to get it.

I believe all players, whether or not they belong to a special PG club, deserves access to a PVE experiences with a high likliehood of social interaction.

Maybe you should take a break from ranting and engage a little reading comprehension? Here's what the OP quoted (my emphasis):

"we deal with each ticket on a case by case basis and being killed in a private group that doesn't allow PVP is not a basis for an automatic reimbursal reimbursal"

Oh, and everyone already does have access to a PVE experience with a high likelyhood of social interaction - I enjoy exactly that every time I log in. To Open. I'm just well aware that my PvE gameplay (which accounts for more than 99% of my time in Open) might occasionally be interupted. So I am always prepared.

 

[Stealthie]

Omg lol not at all. What a snowflake answer.

What people do in PGs is their own business as is what the PG owner does. It's like being kicked from a dungeon group, a raid group, a BF5 squad, e.t.c. You may not like it, you may decide to whine about it, but it's not the dev's problem.

I wouldn't say it's a "snowflake" position.

If FDev don't endorse the rules people apply to their PG's, you're going to get pricks and chancers going into those PGs to cause trouble and then whine to FDev when they get kicked.
The sort of people who do that stuff enjoy "playing the system" and they'll always try to do that with every aspect of the system.

If you rely on dealing with things "on a case by case basis" then those people will be first in line to whine about what they assert are "inconsistent rules".
They'll ram somebody and destroy their ship and FDev will restore that player's ship.
Then they'll ram somebody else, their own ship will be destroyed and they'll whine when FDev refuse to restore their ship.

It's a shame it might be necessary but if FDev provided a formal way for people to define the "rules" of a PG then it'd be easier for FDev to deal with complaints with reference to the PG's rules.

 

[Kaocraft]

What it means is that they've given themselves leeway enough to determine if an action violates the EULA; it's practically impossible, and completely unfeasable to write a EULA that covers every single instance/scenario of say harrassment. Thus, the umbrella term.

It's not something unusual to Frontier and you'll likely find similar wording in most (all) EULA.

It means the exact same thing can happen 10 times to 10 different people and they can choose to take action in only one of those occurrences because they only care about that one person. It means there are no criteria other than their whim. It means that every person may be able to get away with something you can't, or will receive protections that you won't. It means there is no way to know where you stand or will stand on anything so in the case of potential infraction you should restrict yourself as much as possible and in the cases of feeling personally violated you should complain as much as possible and demand as much as possible. EULAs are yes universally bogus because they're designed to take your consumer rights away and nothing else. Which is why for the most part they don't hold up in court they're just corporations giving themselves permission to do whatever whenever for any reason.

Which in itself is actually mostly fine but it also means nobody in these forums has any basis to say whether something is or isn't covered by the EULA. There is no EULA. The EULA is "don't annoy or embarrass Frontier, and don't annoy or embarrass anyone else in such a way that they would then go on to annoy or embarrass Frontier." It's a non-discussion.

 

[sollisb]

It means the exact same thing can happen 10 times to 10 different people and they can choose to take action in only one of those occurrences because they only care about that one person. It means there are no criteria other than their whim. It means that every person may be able to get away with something you can't, or will receive protections that you won't. It means there is no way to know where you stand or will stand on anything so in the case of potential infraction you should restrict yourself as much as possible and in the cases of feeling personally violated you should complain as much as possible and demand as much as possible. EULAs are yes universally bogus because they're designed to take your consumer rights away and nothing else. Which is why for the most part they don't hold up in court they're just corporations giving themselves permission to do whatever whenever for any reason.

Which in itself is actually mostly fine but it also means nobody in these forums has any basis to say whether something is or isn't covered by the EULA. There is no EULA. The EULA is "don't annoy or embarrass Frontier, and don't annoy or embarrass anyone else in such a way that they would then go on to annoy or embarrass Frontier." It's a non-discussion.

I'm pretty sure there's a section which I. linked earlier which covers joining a PG with a set of rules with the sole purpose to disrupt and break those rules.

A PvE only PG is there to allow its members to play is a PvE only environment. If I join, agree to those rules with the only aim to kill the players within for a laugh, then I am breaking the EULA. I am causing harassment.

I agree with your definition of EULA, but it also gives the corporation the ability to say 'hey you were killed by a PvP player in a PvE environment so we are justified in returning your ship' ??

The only reason for this thread is because some people feel aggrieved that the players they kill in the PvE groups are being refunded because of their harassment. Which is kind of Ironic.

 

[Chaparral]

Maybe you should take a break from ranting and engage a little reading comprehension? Here's what the OP quoted (my emphasis):

"we deal with each ticket on a case by case basis and being killed in a private group that doesn't allow PVP is not a basis for an automatic reimbursal reimbursal"

Oh, and everyone already does have access to a PVE experience with a high likelyhood of social interaction - I enjoy exactly that every time I log in. To Open. I'm just well aware that my PvE gameplay (which accounts for more than 99% of my time in Open) might occasionally be interupted. So I am always prepared.

This is a boldfaced lie. A PVE experience in a PVP server is not an Open PVE experience. Have you not played other mmos?

 

[sollisb]

This is a boldfaced lie. A PVE experience in a PVP server is not an Open PVE experience. Have you not played other mmos?

Not necessarily a lie, but misrepresented. It is PVE in Open. It is not PvE only... PG groups ala Mobius/FleetComm are PvE only.

The problem is again, PvP kiddies trying o join a PvE only group with the intent to kill easy targets. (DOesn't say much for the PvP ability but hey)

 

[sewerratuk]

Not necessarily a lie, but misrepresented. It is PVE in Open. It is not PvE only... PG groups ala Mobius/FleetComm are PvE only.

The problem is again, PvP kiddies trying o join a PvE only group with the intent to kill easy targets. (DOesn't say much for the PvP ability but hey)

Well to be fair that is a misinterpretation, pg ala mobius/fleetcomm are not PvE only. Anyone can pvp within that pg, it may just lead to expulsion at a later date

 

[sollisb]

Well to be fair that is a misinterpretation, pg ala mobius/fleetcomm are not PvE only. Anyone can pvp within that pg, it may just lead to expulsion at a later date

Huh? You're being completely disingenuous! They both have rulesets stating PvE only. Which part of that do you not understand?

 

[sewerratuk]

Huh? You're being completely disingenuous! They both have rulesets stating PvE only. Which part of that do you not understand?

Im just pointing out that there is nothing in game to enforce PvE only in a pg therefore it cannot be considered as such

 

[sollisb]

Im just pointing out that there is nothing in game to enforce PvE only in a pg therefore it cannot be considered as such

The entire topic is about PvP players going to PvE only PGs, to kill PvE players and Fdev returning their ships. And you come out and tell us there is nothing in game? While there is no actual mechanic in place, because there is no PvE only mechanic they are doing this.

Unless of course your argument is that we should have PvE/PvP flags so you cannot ever attack a PvE only flagged player? In which case I completely support your idea.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

The entire topic is about PvP players going to PvE only PGs, to kill PvE players and Fdev returning their ships. And you come out and tell us there is nothing in game? While there is no actual mechanic in place, because there is no PvE only mechanic they are doing this.

Unless of course your argument is that we should have PvE/PvP flags so you cannot ever attack a PvE only flagged player? In which case I completely support your idea.

So its okay to remove yourself from open and attack other player groups? But its not okay for PVPers to gain access to PG's and do essentially the same thing in return?

Or is this only allowed to go one way here?

Whats the difference?

 

[Mohrgan]

So its okay to remove yourself from open and attack other player groups? But its not okay for PVPers to gain access to PG's and do essentially the same thing in return?

Or is this only allowed to go one way here?

Whats the difference?

Your assertion is a false equivalency. A faction can only be attacked through the BGS. A faction can only be defended through the BGS. The BGS can be accessed from any mode, at any time, by any Commander. There is zero correlation between the two actions you mention.

Infiltration is just a jerk move. This should not come as a surprise to anyone. The situation is those so inclined get their one chance. Then they're cool forever. Right?

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

Your assertion is a false equivalency. A faction can only be attacked through the BGS. A faction can only be defended through the BGS. The BGS can be accessed from any mode, at any time, by any Commander. There is zero correlation between the two actions you mention.

Infiltration is just a jerk move. This should not come as a surprise to anyone. The situation is those so inclined get their one chance. Then they're cool forever. Right?

I mean if they are removing themselves just to affect someone else that just seems like its the opposite end of the spectrum to me.

If one is a grief, they are both griefs. This goes both ways.