Page 26 of 44 FirstFirst ... 1622232425262728293036 ... LastLast
Results 376 to 390 of 652

Click here to go to the first staff post in this thread.
Thread: Lead Designers advice on dealing with griefing (part 2)

  1. #376
    Originally Posted by ronan187 View Post (Source)
    Really makes me laugh people can feel "grief" from space pixals! It has to be the saddest community of gamers around.
    Grief is a natural human response to loss.

    Griefing on the other hand is causing irritation or frustration to another player. It's called griefing, because it comes from the informal use of the word grief, which means to annoy.

    I find it funny that you think people actually felt grief.

    Edit : If you actually enjoy other people being annoyed - you are a griefer. FYI

  2. #377
    Originally Posted by Red Anders View Post (Source)
    That's wonderful except:

    1. I've spent less than 0.1% of my time in this game engaged in PVP and haven't had any form of PVP encounter in over 12 months.
    2. As you said there is no open PVE mode. There was no open PVE mode advertised with the game, which was the entire point I was making.

    So you said you want to be able to 'play with others cooperatively in an open world', you bought a game that by your own admission does not provide a game mode in which that can happen without also allowing the possibility of playing with people who do not only want to play cooperatively because there is no PVE mode and yet as I said, you think it's everybody else who has the problem. Hell you even think it's me that has the problem, despite the fact that you agree with me 100% that the game doesn't include a mode that provides the experience you want and didn't ever advertise itself as doing and the fact that I've hardly ever bothered with PVP.

    Oh and as I said, you can in fact engage in the cooperative gameplay I referred to in private group. Not every private group (nor did I say that) but private groups can be created to provide PVE mode, thereby providing your required functionality. You know, like I said.

    Thanks for your utterly hilarious psychological profile of me though. Your TED talk on the abandonment of social norms on the internet was fascinating too, or would have been if it wasn't for the fact that pretty much everything you wrote was written from the (entirely false) perspective that PVP players 'do PVP' to make other people's lives a misery and that engaging in it is somehow the mark of a delinquent and neglected mind.

    Just so we're absolutely clear by the way, if you were sat in front of me right now I would cheerfully tell you that to your face.

    Honestly, the attitudes of some people on here towards the very concept of PVP is one of the oddest things I've seen on the internet in over 20 years of using it.

    Also I've realised with this post that it is literaly impossibleto discuss this topic (OP's I mean) for any length of time without it turning into a mode debate, simply because some players seem to view the game through the prism of their hopes and dreams rather than doing what most 'sensible adults' do (since you seem quite keen on people taking a mature approach) which is to deal with things as they are, not as you wish they were.
    1) I replied to your quote in relation to you equating private groups with a pve mode, My comments I thought were clearly addressed to griefers and gankers in general - not to you specifically (the use of you following the statement of griefers and gankers meaning griefers and gankers, not you). On second reading I can see where that may not have been clear so I appologise for any confusion.

    2) I never said I want to be able to play in open cooperatively with other players, or that was the reason I bought the game (neither of which are true by the way) I am just tired of seeing people saying if you want a pve mode you have private group. A private group with no enforced pve rules and a limited player population that has to know about and join it is not the same as a pve mode (which doesn't exist as we both stated) where that play style would be enforced and be easily accessible with no limits.

    3) I never said anything against pvp, in fact I specifically mentioned im fine with pvp where both parties want it, or for in game reasons (such as powerplay, bounty hunting etc) even between two combat ships. I was specifically addressing people who destroy non combat ships with no in game motive behind it i.e griefers and gankers. Since there is no in game reward or motive for these attacks and certainly no challenge what other reason could this group have other than satisfaction at interfering with someone else leisure time?

  3. #378
    Originally Posted by Rafe Zetter View Post (Source)
    I'm sorry was this meant to be a serious reply?

    If any player does anything out of spite "'coz he sploded me / i didnt like wot he rote / dunt like his name / his youtube are carp" or ANY other pathetic reason - I WANT THEM TO BLOCK PEOPLE, so that those "other people" don't have to be in the same space as the spiteful child, who would otherwise probably go out of his/her way to "get thier own back".
    The only partially spite based argument I've seen so far in this thread was the griefer who tried to justify station ramming by saying that through deliberately annoying FDEV by griefing he was expecting to somehow force changes to the game. In other words "I'll ruin other players games till I get my own way".

    Oh and the banned fella who said he and his wing were hunting me due to the thread, (LOL).

    And the PM's I've had about players being KOS listed for posting positively about block.

    There's no requirement for spite to apply a block, just a desire not to play a game with someone. Spite would be a motivator not to apply a block as it implies you want pay-back/to harrass or whatever so blocking is the last thing a spiteful person would do.

    See above examples of spite.

    Originally Posted by Rafe Zetter View Post (Source)
    And any person that reads a smear campaign that spiteful child might undertake and also blocks well - they clearly don't have the capacity to think for themselves and likewise - good riddance.
    Smear campaign ?, can you source that.

    Originally Posted by Rafe Zetter View Post (Source)
    For many many years there was (and still is to some extent) a built in "natural selection" system for Eve Online. Sure it has it's griefers, but most of those are at least "Intelligent" about it. I hate the goonsquad with a passion, mostly because I think The Mittani should have been permabanned for tryign to incite a suicide - BUT, honestly, I respect them because they are not braindead greifers, they perform a function - to cull the weak and the stupid that the game's inbuilt complexity IQ test didn't remove first.

    But ED isn't Eve O ans thus doesn't require such a force.
    I don't care about any of that, this isn't EVE.

    Originally Posted by Rafe Zetter View Post (Source)
    If those types in ED want the ability to block YOU "coz reasons" - trust me, they are DOING YOU A FAVOR.
    I'm glad that you support player choice and the block function.

    Originally Posted by Rafe Zetter View Post (Source)
    Personally I think all ingame commander names should be public so you CAN make that choice, why should you have to be killed first? I'm not a carebear - I've been in Eve since '09, the harshest gaming environment currently available - but spiteful children I can do without. Block me, PLEASE.
    That would make doxxing, stalking and nasty real world stuff too easy for the spiteful along with possibilities for exploiting the block function.



    FDEV's official advice on dealing with griefing :
    https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showth...efing-(part-2)

  4. #379
    Originally Posted by GreyAreaUK View Post (Source)
    Well, thank you for your valuable contribution.
    Even if you don't believe it, it's still true!
    CMDR DAVID187

  5. #380
    Originally Posted by ronan187 View Post (Source)
    Even if you don't believe it, it's still true!
    Or not.

    Orbiting inside the Roche Limit of sanity

  6. #381
    Originally Posted by Soliluna View Post (Source)
    Grief is a natural human response to loss.

    Griefing on the other hand is causing irritation or frustration to another player. It's called griefing, because it comes from the informal use of the word grief, which means to annoy.

    I find it funny that you think people actually felt grief.

    Edit : If you actually enjoy other people being annoyed - you are a griefer. FYI
    You clearly (feign you) don't understand what Griefing means in the gaming community as a whole…
    MSR

  7. #382
    Originally Posted by EvE4evah View Post (Source)
    You clearly (feign you) don't understand what Griefing means in the gaming community as a whole…
    It's a subjective informal term, so everyone's opinion of it varies just like everyone's opinion of what the silent majority probably think.

    Personally I think it means deliberately breaking Wheaton's Law.



    FDEV's official advice on dealing with griefing :
    https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showth...efing-(part-2)

  8. #383
    Originally Posted by EvE4evah View Post (Source)
    You clearly (feign you) don't understand what Griefing means in the gaming community as a whole…
    From the Book Of Wiki: "A griefer is a player in a multiplayer video game who deliberately irritates and angers other players within the game, often using aspects of the game in unintended ways. A griefer derives pleasure primarily or exclusively from the act of annoying other users, and as such is a particular nuisance in online gaming communities, since griefers often cannot be deterred by penalties related to in-game goals."

    Orbiting inside the Roche Limit of sanity

  9. #384
    Originally Posted by EvE4evah View Post (Source)
    You clearly (feign you) don't understand what Griefing means in the gaming community as a whole…
    Pretty confident that I do. Perhaps you should re-evaluate your understanding of the term.

  10. #385
    Still following this thread with interest. Since defining "griefing" is at issue, can I suggest a related concept from other games: OOC ("Out Of Character")?

    In ED I'm happy to accept danger when in Open. If another CMDR wants to be a pirate I'll go along with the RP (I always enjoy good RP). If they want to oppose me in "their" system or at a combat zone, that makes sense too. But I draw the line at danger that's not logical in-game danger, and this is where after reading this thread I would now consider using block (although so far I never have). Someone reducing their hull to 2% and ramming ships in a station isn't plausible space-pilot behaviour, it's OOC. Someone attacking without any comms is probably OOC, and if I have to guess that's how I'll take it. I've read of people at Colonia destroying arriving ships: that's clearly hoping to respawn them back in the bubble, wiping out weeks of their play - very OOC (and also griefing IMO).

    To decide whether something is OOC or not, I ask myself "Is this person attacking for an in-game reason, or are they having a go at me for real-life reasons?" This therefore also takes into account the divide between game and real life already discussed.

    In Lord Of The Rings Online, there's an egg you can collect in a high-level area. It hatches into a powerful monster which you kill to fulfil a quest. At one time, people found that you could leave eggs to hatch anywhere, so they filled the auction house in Bree (a low-level area) with monsters. New-ish players visiting the place got unexpectedly devoured. Very funny, to the perpetrators, but not a danger that made any kind of sense in-game.

    TL-DR - for me, danger is acceptable as long as it makes sense in-game. (And in my play, it's me who decides whether it makes sense).

  11. #386
    Originally Posted by lokvette View Post (Source)
    On the flip side to that we have a commuity who is feeling "grief" becuase people are blocking them and dont want to play with them, oh and the endless threads about how little billy CL before I got to blow up his pixals, yeah the saddest community of gamers around for sure.
    You know, if everyone turning his back to them than maybe the error is on them, and not in everyone else.
    CMDR Minonian.
    Ranks; Elite, entrepreneur 44%, Elite, professional 26%
    fed; Rear Admiral, Imp, Knight.
    Ships; Asp; Void walker, Python; Vindicator, Anaconda; Tiamat, Cobra MK III; Uraeus, Fed Corvette; Ace of hearts.

  12. #387
    Originally Posted by Brrokk View Post (Source)
    TL-DR - for me, danger is acceptable as long as it makes sense in-game. (And in my play, it's me who decides if it makes sense).
    The problem with such one sided judgement calls is that the motivations of other CMDRs or players will generally be unknown, legitimate or not.

    Lets say my CMDR is commerce raiding by blowing up traders. My CMDR's goal is to delay the completion of a CG, or prevent economic aid to an enemy, or whatever...and the most effective way to do this is to destroy as much tonnage of cargo as possible as quickly as possible and make life as difficult for traders operating in the area as possible. You don't do this by fighting fair, or chatting with your targets. You find them, hit them with overwhelming force, and move on to the next, rinse and repeat. If I'm doing something along these lines, I'm not targeting the other player, my CMDR is targeting other CMDRs...but there is often very little difference, to an outside observer, or the victim, between this and various forms of 'griefing'.

    Personally, I don't think judgement calls on who is griefing should be in the hands of players, especially not those who have little reason to be impartial or who may have conflicting interests. Frontier should be making these calls, not just handing over easily abused tools to the masses in an MMO.

  13. #388
    Originally Posted by Morbad View Post (Source)
    The problem with such one sided judgement calls is that the motivations of other CMDRs or players will generally be unknown, legitimate or not...
    True, I recognise that, but to decide about those unknown motivations I have to use my own judgement; I have nothing else to go on if I'm not offered any comms. Recently a ship looped around behind my unarmed Asp Explorer and changed to a hollow triangle. I got away by hyperspace jump*. I couldn't see any reason for the attempt as I was just running through the system, but maybe there was one; I remained undecided and didn't bother even looking up the commander's name. I haven't suffered the much worse things like station ramming, but in those cases I would be more certain about what I call OOC and would consider blocking.

    As for whether the feature should be given to us, I suspect that a game not marketed as 18+ has to have a player-controlled block function. And a feature which blocked comms but not instancing would really be pretty mad. I doubt FD have a choice really.

    * Coincidentally?, the next day there was a forum thread suggesting that combat ships should have extra jump range when trying to follow a high-wake.

  14. #389
    Originally Posted by Brrokk View Post (Source)
    And a feature which blocked comms but not instancing would really be pretty mad.
    Why is that?

    I'm not a big MMO player, but all of such games I have played have had a chat mute/squelch/block function, but no way to exclude anyone from a public instance (which is what instances in Open are, irrespective of the P2P nature of the game).

    Indeed, blocking chat would have a distinct in-character function, while blocking instancing cannot.

  15. #390
    Originally Posted by Morbad View Post (Source)
    Why is that?

    I'm not a big MMO player, but all of such games I have played have had a chat mute/squelch/block function, but no way to exclude anyone from a public instance (which is what instances in Open are, irrespective of the P2P nature of the game).

    Indeed, blocking chat would have a distinct in-character function, while blocking instancing cannot.
    Perhaps FDEV decided to give people the choice to block players as an alternative to taking harsher action themselves against griefing/cheating, as they knew it's such a subjective issue.

    That would allow a greater degree of individual game tailoring to players, and also cater to a wider pool of playstyles. Their inclusion of the three modes demonstrates they don't cater exclusively to any one approach, they seem to prefer making choices available.



    FDEV's official advice on dealing with griefing :
    https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showth...efing-(part-2)

Page 26 of 44 FirstFirst ... 1622232425262728293036 ... LastLast