I gank, therefore I am....
(Not aimed at anyone, it just crossed my mind and made me smile!)
(Not aimed at anyone, it just crossed my mind and made me smile!)
Question for Open players who don't like PVP/ganking... help me understand
- Thread starter Danquememe
- Start date
I don't see it mentioned in either the EULA or the code of conduct, but of course it's always up to FDev to determine such matters. Do you have a source for that? I'd be genuinely interested in reading it. And no, not because I want to stream snipe a charity event.
If such information isn't easily found all the more reason not to rely on it in regards to stream sniping. Even if it was ban worthy it doesn't stop people from doing it, does it?
Do what you suggested. Just better all around.
For some reason it reminded me of Voltaire's alleged last words (which I entirely instead to steal for myself).
Wouldn't dream of taking it poorly! Believe it or not, I'm nothing if not self aware.
I don't see it mentioned in either the EULA or the code of conduct, but of course it's always up to FDev to determine such matters. Do you have a source for that? I'd be genuinely interested in reading it. And no, not because I want to stream snipe a charity event.
HARASSMENT
We do not tolerate harassment within our community or our games....This also includes the prolonged, extensive, and/or malicious targeting of an individual or group of individuals through Frontier-owned platforms for the purposes of disruption or agitation.
SPAM, FLOODING OR TROLLING
This criteria also includes creating content or causing disturbances for the sole purpose of instigating unrest within the community or antagonising a group/individual. Content displaying these behaviours which are shared or distributed through Frontier channels will not be tolerated.
WITCH-HUNTS / MOB MENTALITY
We do not allow the use of any of our communications systems to be used for 'witch-hunts' or mob-mentality griefing that leads to targeted harassment
I think it was one of those, didn't need a specific re-write or specific offence as it was deemed to be harassment I think. Fdev did make a statement at the time Im pretty sure. Its always opinion but you can always ask fdev what their current interpretation or opinion is?
Interestingly,
REPORTING & BLOCKING
If you do not want an individual to be able to communicate with you within our multiplayer game(s), you can use any provided in-game block functions to prevent further contact. This is often a good course of action and can be useful when reporting a player as well.
So blocking is the preferred fdev method now. It is the easiest, nothing for fdev to do. No rules to be exploited.
and
CHEATING
We do not tolerate the use of any exploits or taking advantage of any bugs in the game to generate a significant player advantage.
Its all in the definition and interpretation of course.
Not exactly rock solid then, is it?
I think you were looking for this:
News - Support update - Reiteration of player harassment rules
Hi everyone, In light of recent issues relating to the way a small collective of players have been approaching and targeting specific private groups and other community events such as charity livestreams, we wanted to reinforce an important part of the existing rules regarding in-game...
The things you highlighted are more towards griefers not gankers, there is a big difference. Kill 20 random people /= kill the same person 20 times.
And from my own recent experience FDev does tell you to block griefers, it seems there needs to be a higher bar crossed for more actions taken.
The cheating thing is about trainers and using obvious exploits like the fertilizer thingy.
edit: he provided context for this one.
That's certainly much more clear. But it doesn't do anything until after the fact.
For the good of their project, streamers should still plan for contingencies in case of a snipe.
Wouldn't dream of taking it poorly! Believe it or not, I'm nothing if not self aware.
Good man!
But I do have to say, that's quite a disturbing thing to see so late in the evening!!
(I blame you for any weird mushroom dreams...!)
Wouldn't dream of taking it poorly! Believe it or not, I'm nothing if not self aware.
Let's not forget modest either.
Another important section to bear in mind, prescient to the turn the conversation has taken:
In addition, running a livestream in Open does invite the potential for players to approach and impact your gameplay
Source: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threads/support-update-reiteration-of-player-harassment-rules.237761/
So yeah, context sensitive. But livestreaming itself, on its own, is explicitly not off-limits nor necessarily subject to immediate ban.
Last edited:
Ufff...maybe if they had of sold the game to the aliens, then we wouldn't be having these issues.
I dids tell them, but nope, they dids not listen...sigh.
I dids tell them, but nope, they dids not listen...sigh.
Stream sniping IS NOT in the competence of FDev, but read, say, the Twitch Community Guide:I don't see it mentioned in either the EULA or the code of conduct, but of course it's always up to FDev to determine such matters. Do you have a source for that? I'd be genuinely interested in reading it. And no, not because I want to stream snipe a charity event.
Additional Gaming Content Guidelines
Cheating in Online Games
Any activity, such as cheating, hacking, botting, or tampering, that gives the account owner an unfair advantage in an online multiplayer game, is prohibited. This also includes exploiting another broadcaster's live broadcast in order to harass them in-game, such as stream sniping.
Cheating in Online Games
Any activity, such as cheating, hacking, botting, or tampering, that gives the account owner an unfair advantage in an online multiplayer game, is prohibited. This also includes exploiting another broadcaster's live broadcast in order to harass them in-game, such as stream sniping.
But more of it is just a matter of decency. If somebody is breaking rules here, then do not demand from the noobs not to clog.
I agree 99% with everything you have said, but there's one bit nagging at me slightly, and it's this assertion that gankers are the only ones playing the game "literally as intended", and "per its creator's own words".
A few dozen pages ago, someone brought up something David Braben said in the livestream. I forget the exact phrasing - something along the lines of players creating problems for other players - but it was held up as irrefutable proof that ganking is the one true way and that The Holy Braben has decreed it so (exaggeration for dramatic effect). And sure, maybe that's exactly what he meant when he said that. But it isn't how I interpreted it at all, and if there's one thing this last week on the forums has proven definitively, it's that this community does not interpret anything the same way as each other. For every thread looking at statement XYZ and saying it's proof that some feature will or won't be in Odyssey, there's another insisting the exact opposite, based on the exact same statement. It's not just opinions that don't always align in this community, it's the facts.
I think what we can all agree though is that, even if the developers did intend for ganking as-is to be part of the game, they probably didn't expect it to have the kind of negative impact it has on some of the targets and victims. I think we can agree that people feeling like they've been bullied off Open, or people having that one negative gank experience and spending the next six years in Solo is what the developers intended. I would also argue that gankers compensating those they kill, offering friendship and advice and what-not isn't as intended, either. Not every unintended thing is bad. The Fuel Rats don't exist because the developers intended them to. Third-party tools don't exist by developer intent. The road to riches, LTD or void opal mining being the lucrative cash cow aren't what the developers intended. But, Elite Dangerous is intentionally a game in which happy accidents and tolerated exploits are able to exist.
I could (and did, before I deleted it!) wax philosophical on that for several more paragraphs... but instead, let me suggest a different way of framing your third point. Open fails PVPers, because PVPers are forced to play in an environment where their targets are not necessarily willing participants. That's the real problem here: not that you guys are doing anything wrong by playing the game in a way that you feel is the correct way to play, but that the game isn't facilitating that in a way that is acceptable to all parties. The flaw in this whole conversation is that each side keeps trying to put the blame on the other. For the gankers, you place the fault with those who aren't playing Solo. For the gankees, we place the fault with a lack of empathy or remorse from the gankers. In reality, the fault is with the game, which does not adequately cater to what is, IMO, a pretty obvious and predictable problem. Suggesting that this is the game as intended gives the developers a free pass: if this is the situation they did intend, then they were short-sighted, and they should intentionally do something about it rather than us all having to suck it up and live with the status quo.
And to back up that assertion with an actionable suggestion: PVP tags. The game already does matchmaking to decide what instance you end up in. Give us an option to tag ourselves for PVP, and have the game factor that in when it decides who to put in which instance. It is an easy(ish) solution, and one that has existed in MMOs for donkey's years. That way, if you're a PVPer and a player shows up in your instance, you know they've flagged themselves for it, that they're willingly participating in that kind of gameplay. Slap a cooldown on it if necessary (which many games do)... but since it's to do with instances and matchmaking, it's not going to take effect until the next system / next round of instance matchmaking anyway, so unless someone is fumbling through their settings to turn off their PVP flag while you're chasing them, there's almost a built-in mechanical cooldown anyway. Not only does that funnel all the willing PVPers into the same instances, but it also means that Open is safe(r) for PVE folks to come out of Solo, and means that if you bump into another player in a PVE instance there's no fear of shenanigans which might actively encourage the kind of non-PVP co-op that some folks are hoping for. It's a solution where no one loses: PVPers get willing targets and better odds of quality PVP, and PVEers get a gank free experience without it being solitary. Win-win.
But you do have a point, a point that's been bothering me quite a bit since somebody helpfully explained to me that my "harmless" explo data actually did mean something in game. Personally, it doesn't matter to me where I get my explo credits from, credits are credits, but I don't want to unintentionally step on some player faction's BGS efforts by unloading the "wrong" place. As a matter of fact, if I were interdicted and contacted by a CMDR (instead of just being blown to bits on sight), I'd be more than happy to either fly to another system or unload it at a station of his choosing.Playing devil's advocate - and this isn't meant as an attack on you or anyone in particular:
I acknowledge that I probably am affecting other players when I blow them up, but it's not with the intent of having any sort of influence, because I generally don't pay too much attention to who or what I've targeted beyond saying "mmm tasty Anaconda."
My point, of course, is that as always these things are a matter of perspective.
Why yes, my name is Captain Obvious, how did you guess?
Anyway, quick question for those who might know, and sorry for borrowing your most excellent thread for this purpose: Is there any easy, quick way to see if a particular system is the focus of some player faction BGS work? In game or third party doesn't matter to me, as long as it's easy. Because then it would be the easiest thing in the world for me to just NOT sell any explo data in those systems.
In other words why choose game with rather toxic subset of gamer community? YAY, hooray for brave picnic wasps. And of course responsibility lies only on part of attacked, not on attackers.
Any movement in faction influence is a result of player activity, you can see that as up & down arrows on the status page on your right HUD panel (the faction list, the arrows are to the right of the economy & security sliders, whose position will give you some indication of recent activity too).
Even simpler rule would be if there's a war or election going, any system state other than 'none' really, that's because of player activity. Inara or similar will show factions going up & down over time too. The station owning faction is the one that will receive a boost to their economy from your data, there are plenty of faction supporters that would welcome your data if you don't have a preference yourself. It has no benefit if that faction is at war, it does help them if they are in an election though.
If you just want the tags & aren't so bothered about maximising cash you could sell on a carrier.
Hadn't though of that! That would definitely be the "quick and dirty" way of making sure and no, at this point of Credits floating around in hallways and ship heads, I'm really not that fussed about the cash. Thanks!