New policy on player kills in private groups?

[sollisb]

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.

I think these are two entirely different arguments.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

I think these are two entirely different arguments.

Not at all.

[video=youtube;cnYXTh4TCVo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnYXTh4TCVo[/video]

The guy intentionally removed himself from open because he knew we could stop him from completing those actions against our progress. Listen to what they say at the end.

So if thats okay to do. Why is it so wrong for PVPers to infiltrate a PG and do the same with no consequences?

How is one better than the other? They aren't.

 

[Stealthie]

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?

There's nothing to stop you doing exactly the same thing if you want to.

What you can't expect to be able to do is go into somebody else's PG and do what you want to do.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

There's nothing to stop you doing exactly the same thing if you want to.

What you can't expect to be able to do is go into somebody else's PG and do what you want to do.

How is that any different than what they are doing there? Again, if the intention is not to be affected yourselves. Then why do people get to affect someone else while they intentionally remove themselves to do it?

That seems like a griefer move to me? And then everyone shuns the people that goes in and kills people in a PG? No different than the actions people are doing on the other side?

Thats a buncha bull!

These guys know what they are doing too. Just look at the wording.

 

[sollisb]

How is that any different than what they are doing there? Again, if the intention is not to be affected yourselves. Then why do people get to affect someone else while they intentionally remove themselves to do it?

That seems like a griefer move to me? And then everyone shuns the people that goes in and kills people in a PG? No different than the actions people are doing on the other side?

Thats a buncha bull!

OK; 2 different examples of what I 'think' you are referring to..


1. Player. in Open PvPing for system superiority in the BGS. His foe leaves 'Open' and goes to PG or Solo and carries on. You can do the same as can anyone else.

2. Players in DW2 are fit almost entirely for Exploration and in a PG with PvE only rules. You join the PG, agree to the rules and start killing any players you see.

Those are 2 entirely different scenarios. One is related to the BGS, one (the latter) is a move done for no other reason than for fun.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

OK; 2 different examples of what I 'think' you are referring to..


1. Player. in Open PvPing for system superiority in the BGS. His foe leaves 'Open' and goes to PG or Solo and carries on. You can do the same as can anyone else.

2. Players in DW2 are fit almost entirely for Exploration and in a PG with PvE only rules. You join the PG, agree to the rules and start killing any players you see.

Those are 2 entirely different scenarios. One is related to the BGS, one (the latter) is a move done for no other reason than for fun.

Agreed, I am saying how is that any more of a move than the guy in the video though?

There are people that are doing the same thing on the other side. But that seems to be okay!

Why does it being an explorer or distance worlds count here? Im not saying anyone should gank inside the PG's, but if its bad to gank inside the PG's then why isint it bad to essentially do the same thing while affecting other player groups too?

Just because there is an event doesnt mean anything. This has been an ongoing thing, and is usually why some people gank PG's like that. At least that was their reasoning when I asked.

I know I have almost pulled the trigger a few times. WHen I fought against mobius. I did it in their group so they could see me do it in colonia. Trust me its not because we couldn't instance with them.

There is a reason I am here trying to point this out.

I am seeing everyone run PVPers into the ground, but some of these guys are guilty of doing the exact same thing on the end of the spectrum. And that seems to be okay?

I dont think so!

 

[Stealthie]

How is that any different than what they are doing there? Again, if the intention is not to be affected yourselves. Then why do people get to affect someone else while they intentionally remove themselves to do it?

The difference is that you're doing it in somebody else's PG.

If you're struggling to understand the difference, let yourself into a neighbour's house and start to go through their stuff.
The nice men in the car with blue flashing lights on the roof who arrive shortly afterwards will probably be happy to explain it to you.

 

[Kaocraft]

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.

Which is fine. But let's not pretend it isn't (1) Arbitrary, (2) A departure from the norm and (3) Frontier playing favorites.

Within the framework of the game itself, there is no such thing as a PvE private group. There is no way to set up a message, agreement, or in-game description for your group, so there is no in-game way to establish that any group is PvE or that any group has rules which must be followed. It's just a name that you can type in and ask to join, which the admin of a group can choose to invite you or not. Disputes about following "the rules" or breaking "the rules" are entirely outside of the scope of the game. It's agreements that people may or may not have made on various websites, on discord, in email, or in-person conversation, agreements which may or may not have been made before, during, or after joining the group. It's completely unaccountable and completely outside of the scope of anything having to do with the game. It's a he-said-she-said situation.

You can set up a private group and you can call it a "PvE" group, or a "sidewinders only" group, or "no engineering" group, or an "ironman only" group, or "everyone must wear ship kits" if you want to, but it is ultimately meaningless because there's nothing about those agreements that are even a little bit binding, none of it is enforceable, and none of it, frankly, is any of Frontier's business.

 

[Phisto Sobanii]

I’m trying to imagine how all the effort to find, infiltrate, find and destroy targets, then get summarily booted from a PMF’s PG would be a better strategy in a typical BGS war than just getting on with doing BGS activities in whatever mode. Sure, it’s annoying you can’t attack them directly but infiltrating sounds like a massive waste of time.

Do we even have examples of people infiltrating PMF PGs for this purpose? Who does that?

 

[Stealthie]

You can set up a private group and you can call it a "PvE" group, or a "sidewinders only" group, or "no engineering" group, or an "ironman only" group, or "everyone must wear ship kits" if you want to, but it is ultimately meaningless because there's nothing about those agreements that are even a little bit binding, none of it is enforceable, and none of it, frankly, is any of Frontier's business.

That's exactly the sort of scenario I was thinking about - and it's probably why FDev are sticking with the "case by case" thing.

Set up a "No engineering" PG, get spaced by some yahoo in a fully engineered ship and I doubt FDev would be interested in restoring your ship.
They'd probably just tell you that you have the right to kick anybody who isn't complying with your PG's rules but the attack was legit' gameplay.

Course, I might be wrong about that. Maybe FDev would help enforce your PG's rules.
I'd hope they would, but I suspect they wouldn't - especially not multiple times.

Which is where it'd help if PGs allowed you to select specific play-styles in a similar way to how squadrons do.
Even if those settings didn't have any effect on how the game functions, at least it'd provide specific "rules" for FDev to consider when deciding whether a claim was valid.
Ultimately, it might help them develop a way to automatically deal with some claims and improve the situation even more.

 

[sollisb]

Which is fine. But let's not pretend it isn't (1) Arbitrary, (2) A departure from the norm and (3) Frontier playing favorites.

Within the framework of the game itself, there is no such thing as a PvE private group. There is no way to set up a message, agreement, or in-game description for your group, so there is no in-game way to establish that any group is PvE or that any group has rules which must be followed. It's just a name that you can type in and ask to join, which the admin of a group can choose to invite you or not. Disputes about following "the rules" or breaking "the rules" are entirely outside of the scope of the game. It's agreements that people may or may not have made on various websites, on discord, in email, or in-person conversation, agreements which may or may not have been made before, during, or after joining the group. It's completely unaccountable and completely outside of the scope of anything having to do with the game. It's a he-said-she-said situation.

You can set up a private group and you can call it a "PvE" group, or a "sidewinders only" group, or "no engineering" group, or an "ironman only" group, or "everyone must wear ship kits" if you want to, but it is ultimately meaningless because there's nothing about those agreements that are even a little bit binding, none of it is enforceable, and none of it, frankly, is any of Frontier's business.

I'm with you on this in the main.

I'm not so sure of FDev playing favourites. Anyone here knows I think FDev are amateurs when it comes to MMOs, how-ever, I also recognise they're business people first. DW2 is a huge, if not the biggest player expedition to happen within Elite. They had a dismal start, showing their choice of server topology is just not up to MMO standards. Adding to that, is the fact we have a de-facto PvE only PG being used for that expedition. And then we have fools trying to worm their way on to disrupt it's activities or lets keep it simple, to kill the players, who are, easy fodder.

I agree there is no in-game group mechanics to allow/disallow PvE/PvP, however, there is (usually) a set of governing rules for the group(s). If you join the group you are expected to abide by the rules you agreed to. Anything else is just being a . No-one can deny that.

On the subject of enforceability or 'binding' well, yes, there is. The EULA clearly states harassment and other stuff which covers such moves. One sec let me see if I can find it.. Yes, Section 4.1 Deals with Fraud and maliciousness. Applying to a known PvE only group with the intent to kill the players within is fraud and malicious. And FDev have every right to ban or whatever they deem necessary to defend that heading.

There is no he-said, she-said. It is common knowledge indeed freely available, that Fleetcomm is PvE only, to join you have to agree to those rules. There is no 'well', 'maybe', etc You kill someone and you're out of the group.

In relation the BGS the same rules apply. For sure there may be and I bet there are, players who use PvE only group to play the BGS. But everyone can do it. And in fairness, I don't think the BGS is the main topic of this thread.

When players break EULA or indeed rules, yes it is Frontiers Business, especially when the allowance to break those rules might create bad publicity. And we both know, bad publicity from DW2 expedition would not be good for the players or the company.

I'll leave you with this; With all the publicity/forums cries, about this, someone somewhere in Frontier maybe thinking, well lets create a PvE only environment. It could run happily alongside Open mode. Where does that leave PvP. PvP in comparison to PvE is a minority. Be careful what you wish for. I'd be inclined to leave DW2 do it's thing and fight the other fronts of your battle elsewhere.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

If you're struggling to understand the difference, let yourself into a neighbour's house and start to go through their stuff.
The nice men in the car with blue flashing lights on the roof who arrive shortly afterwards will probably be happy to explain it to you.

If I were that guy in that house, Id be able to defend myself with a gun.

In this case, there would be a ghost taking my stuff in my world. And I am unable to stop them.

Like that movie poltergeist, how one side affected the other without seeing it?

Same thing.

We have been playing Elite Dangerous : Poltergeist

 

[Stealthie]

If I were that guy in that house, Id be able to defend myself with a gun.

In this case, there would be a ghost taking my stuff in my world. And I am unable to stop them.

Like that movie poltergeist, how one side affected the other without seeing it?

Same thing.

We have been playing Elite Dangerous : Poltergeist

Yes, I understand your grievance and, TBH, I'd be willing to consider the idea of OOPP.

The problem is, going into somebody else's PG and doing stuff that contravenes the "rules" they've set up for that PG ISN'T analogous to what happens with PP.


What happens in PP is like, say, your neighbour lighting a bonfire in their back-yard which ruins your barbeque.
If you wanted to light your own bonfire in your own back-yard in an attempt to get revenge, that'd be up to you.
If you decide to go to your neighbour's house and smash up their barbeque, you're out of order.

 

[sewerratuk]

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.

Kaocraft goes into more detail of what I’m saying. Regarding a PvE flag, yes I think pg’s should have an option to put in game rules in place. In open, no I don’t think there should be. I used to be against an open PvE server as well for reasons but now I really couldn’t care either way

 

[Goose4291]

Which is fine. But let's not pretend it isn't (1) Arbitrary, (2) A departure from the norm and (3) Frontier playing favorites.

So, business as usual at Frontier Towers then?

 

[Kaocraft]

I'm with you on this in the main.

I'm not so sure of FDev playing favourites. Anyone here knows I think FDev are amateurs when it comes to MMOs, how-ever, I also recognise they're business people first. DW2 is a huge, if not the biggest player expedition to happen within Elite. They had a dismal start, showing their choice of server topology is just not up to MMO standards. Adding to that, is the fact we have a de-facto PvE only PG being used for that expedition. And then we have fools trying to worm their way on to disrupt it's activities or lets keep it simple, to kill the players, who are, easy fodder.

I agree there is no in-game group mechanics to allow/disallow PvE/PvP, however, there is (usually) a set of governing rules for the group(s). If you join the group you are expected to abide by the rules you agreed to. Anything else is just being a . No-one can deny that.

On the subject of enforceability or 'binding' well, yes, there is. The EULA clearly states harassment and other stuff which covers such moves. One sec let me see if I can find it.. Yes, Section 4.1 Deals with Fraud and maliciousness. Applying to a known PvE only group with the intent to kill the players within is fraud and malicious. And FDev have every right to ban or whatever they deem necessary to defend that heading.

There is no he-said, she-said. It is common knowledge indeed freely available, that Fleetcomm is PvE only, to join you have to agree to those rules. There is no 'well', 'maybe', etc You kill someone and you're out of the group.

In relation the BGS the same rules apply. For sure there may be and I bet there are, players who use PvE only group to play the BGS. But everyone can do it. And in fairness, I don't think the BGS is the main topic of this thread.

When players break EULA or indeed rules, yes it is Frontiers Business, especially when the allowance to break those rules might create bad publicity. And we both know, bad publicity from DW2 expedition would not be good for the players or the company.

I'll leave you with this; With all the publicity/forums cries, about this, someone somewhere in Frontier maybe thinking, well lets create a PvE only environment. It could run happily alongside Open mode. Where does that leave PvP. PvP in comparison to PvE is a minority. Be careful what you wish for. I'd be inclined to leave DW2 do it's thing and fight the other fronts of your battle elsewhere.

Players don’t get to make rules for the game. Trying to establish and enforce a player made rule would be just as fraudulent as more fraudulent than breaking it. Say I make a public website for CMDR Kaocraft, which explicitly states that no one is allowed to kill me in Elite Dangerous. It’s common knowledge and therefore anyone engaging me would be breaking the rules. Does the EULA factor into this at all? Is someone “harassing” me or committing fraud by refusing to obey my rules? Am I entitled to having my ship restored by Frontier and can I demand that the perpetrator be punished for violating my rules? The rules of a private group are no different from this. It’s just a bunch of people demanding something and everyone else gets to individually choose whether or not to honor these rules. It’s operating on an entirely separate layer outside of the game itself.

 

[Globusdiablo]

Players don’t get to make rules for the game. Trying to establish and enforce a player made rule would be just as fraudulent as breaking it. Say I make a public website for CMDR Kaocraft, which explicitly states that no one is allowed to kill me in Elite Dangerous. It’s common knowledge and therefore anyone engaging me would be breaking the rules. Does the EULA factor into this at all? Is someone “harassing” me or committing fraud by refusing to obey my rules? Am I entitled to having my ship restored by Frontier and can I demand that the perpetrator be punished for violating my rules? The rules of a private group are no different from this. It’s just a bunch of people demanding something and everyone else gets to individually choose whether or not to honor these rules. It’s operating on an entirely separate layer outside of the game itself.

Current precedence/policy seems to suggest that if you create a private group on this premise and invite everyone/anyone to join (20.000 player limit), FD will reimburse your losses if you are PKed.

 

[sewerratuk]

Current precedence/policy seems to suggest that if you create a private group on this premise and invite everyone/anyone to join (20.000 player limit), FD will reimburse your losses if you are PKed.

We shall see, if indeed distant ganks do have 5th columnists in fleetcomm potentially the FD support staff are going to be kept very busy if they enforce the policy

 

[Bob Lighthouse]

Yes, I understand your grievance and, TBH, I'd be willing to consider the idea of OOPP.

The problem is, going into somebody else's PG and doing stuff that contravenes the "rules" they've set up for that PG ISN'T analogous to what happens with PP.


What happens in PP is like, say, your neighbour lighting a bonfire in their back-yard which ruins your barbeque.
If you wanted to light your own bonfire in your own back-yard in an attempt to get revenge, that'd be up to you.
If you decide to go to your neighbour's house and smash up their barbeque, you're out of order.

Sure leave their barbecue out of it(!), but you might be perfectly fine putting out the bonfire and calling the police and fire dept.
Many places frown on bonfires in close proximity to neighbors.

 

[Phisto Sobanii]

If FDEV is reimbursing people for getting player killed have their been any threads with players crowing about it? You figure at least a few couldn’t wait to ‘rub it in those griefers faces!!’