Page 5 of 15 FirstFirst ... 3456710 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 217

Thread: Privateer’s Alliance Charity Event Targeted for Griefing

  1. #61
    Originally Posted by Delilah View Post (Source)
    UA bombing has become one of the safe spaces for griefers in Elite. I don’t believe this was Frontier’s intent, and it was certainly not their intent to see good-faith charity events disrupted in this manner.
    There are three modes in elite; there are things people can do that aren't liked. Neither of those are unintentional. This is the very real risk of bringing emotive situations into a game world, that you cannot control.

    Unfortunately, UA bombing is not addressed by C&P and there is no defense against it.
    Frontier may have not understood the impact of what they have done; there's an open secret that everyone realises at this point, but it is part of the game mechanics. No, there is no defense; it works across all modes. That's 100% intentional.

    One can only respond after the fact and at a substantial investment of time and credits. What solutions around this issue come to your minds?
    Again; intentional. If all modes are, apparently, equal, then that means both positive and negatives get to be equal. There's no getting around that.

    If commanders want to bring highly emotionally charged events into the game, then that is their want to do. I personally think it's very foolish to do this, in a realm one cannot control. The problem isn't so much UA bombing, even if it is potentially a bit of a dick move.

    It's that commanders believe certain events such as charities should automatically and implicitly have some right to exist in a game universe. Look; I think it's pretty noble to stand for a charity and support it. But if you bring that into a game universe that is not a 100% controlled environment, you really don't get to complain if people use game mechanics for game reasons.

    We do not get to control what happens; Solo or PG might give the illusion that the player has control. But we don't. This isn't our personal game universe. It's the communities and the developers.

    Whether one approves of UA bombing or not (personally I think Frontier had some better options; but this is what they chose, again because it will reliably impact all modes) it's part of the fabric of the game. Turning off "all the bad things" every time a charitable event is upending the entire universe and creates a pretty bad precedent, even for the best of intentions.

    I may not agree with UA bombing actions; but it is a part of the game, it's a global impactor (across all modes, which as we're told a million times, are all the same and all valid) and this is intentional. These moral choices are important.

    There are ways to counter it. The game offers the tools to counter. This is more constructive, and will bring commanders together for a common cause. Complaining about it, and not doing anything, really just emboldens the UA bombers to continue.

    --

    Perhaps the best thing? Mobilise commanders to be at the ready with meta-alloys. Call for support. You'll get a huge number of people on board. Ready to go.

  2. #62
    Originally Posted by kofeyh View Post (Source)
    There are three modes in elite; there are things people can do that aren't liked. Neither of those are unintentional. This is the very real risk of bringing emotive situations into a game world, that you cannot control.



    Frontier may have not understood the impact of what they have done; there's an open secret that everyone realises at this point, but it is part of the game mechanics. No, there is no defense; it works across all modes. That's 100% intentional.



    Again; intentional. If all modes are, apparently, equal, then that means both positive and negatives get to be equal. There's no getting around that.

    If commanders want to bring highly emotionally charged events into the game, then that is their want to do. I personally think it's very foolish to do this, in a realm one cannot control. The problem isn't so much UA bombing, even if it is potentially a bit of a dick move.

    It's that commanders believe certain events such as charities should automatically and implicitly have some right to exist in a game universe. Look; I think it's pretty noble to stand for a charity and support it. But if you bring that into a game universe that is not a 100% controlled environment, you really don't get to complain if people use game mechanics for game reasons.

    We do not get to control what happens; Solo or PG might give the illusion that the player has control. But we don't. This isn't our personal game universe. It's the communities and the developers.

    Whether one approves of UA bombing or not (imho, it's a dick move, but commanders have every freedom to UA bomb, as they do ship meta alloy) it's part of the fabric of the game. Turning off "all the bad things" every time a charitable event is upending the entire universe.

    I may not agree with UA bombing actions; but it is a part of the game, it's a global impactor (across all modes, which as we're told a million times, are all the same and all valid) and this is intentional. These moral choices are important.

    --

    Perhaps the best thing? Mobilise commanders to be at the ready with meta-alloys. Call for support. You'll get a huge number of people on board. Ready to go. The game offers the tools to counter. Do so.
    I really just wish we could blockade our system, scan people that come, Manifest scan them and shoot them down.

    This is what PVP should be used for right here. Not griefing or ganking.

    Just plain and simple attack and defend.

    You know how some people around here dont want changes made because "they dont want a playstyle forced upon them". Well BGS attackers do the same thing, except there is no OPT out like they can for PVP.

    They are literally forcing people to farm back. And we do. And thats okay.

    Im just pointing out to all the people around here what it looks like when the shoe is on the other foot.

    Fix the modes because they arent equal. Give PVP its meaning and let me shoot these *********** down.

    I dont understand why this is a difficult concept for some to understand. Not all of the game has to be limited, just the activities where you intentionally try to effect others.

  3. #63
    Originally Posted by That90skid View Post (Source)
    I really just wish we could blockade our system, scan people that come, Manifest scan them and shoot them down.

    This is what PVP should be used for right here. Not griefing or ganking.
    The game features modes that provide reduced interaction for commanders; this can be used for good, or not. This is the cost of that freedom to not be directly impacted; it means nefarious deeds are also unable to be directly impacted. Frontier did this intentionally. UAs are intentional, because they are a global impactor.

    Of course; if this was a single mode only thing; then UA bombers would have to run the gauntlet. But there are three modes. And this is the cost of having that freedom. There's always a cost. I am sure there would be a veritable wall in open, if it mattered. It doesn't; because decisions have consequences. And global impactors cannot be avoided.

    One cannot have 3 levels of interaction, but avoid the consequences of that, when they are suddenly inconvenient. It doesn't work like that. This is the cost. There was always going to be a cost. And this is something Frontier has to consider, will be considering and has considered for a while.

    Frontier will be under incredible pressure to make this a “special case” and I can well imagine the challenging position this puts them in.

    This is a really challenging discussion. Because there really isn’t any one right answer. The developer has elected to ensure some things are unavoidable if they happen. They have every right to do that.

  4. #64
    Originally Posted by IndigoWyrd View Post (Source)
    We know what they are - they are Thargoid Probes, TP for short.
    Yeah I'm wondering how the hell these people are managing to get a hold of that many number of probes to start station shutdowns.

    We know the Thargoids are back.

    We know they don't take lightly to their stuff being taken.

    We know that UA's are Thargoid tech.

    Frankly if the Thargoids continue to ramp up their incursion and the rather angry reclaimation of their stuff. UA's should be increasingly rare to the point of non-existence as the Thargoids continue.

    We know they're capable of hyperinterdictions.

    I'm surprised the Thargoids aren't doing exactly what we want them to do and counter these deviants. They should be ripping these people from hyperspace right and left for carrying that much of their tech and blasting them to bits to reclaim what was theirs. They should be just as relentless as the ATR is reputed to be in 3.0. Once they know you have something of theirs, they should hunt you relentlessly for it. Even if you CL the game would remember you have those items and the second you load back up, they're right back on top of you.

    Your only recourse would be to dump and run.

    So why haven't they done this yet?

  5. #65
    Since you are conducting a charity in part for a charity in the United States, and that charity is based in an online function, you could contact the FBI and request an investigation for cyber terrorism.

    The only qualifier would be that you would need to reasonably prove that the griefers cost the charity more than $5,000.00 in lost revenues, that being the lower limit required by the FBI to open an investigation.

  6. #66
    UAs are a simplistic lever. They can be delivered in any mode, to any location that has the appropriate facility. If there was one true universal constant for the game, that’s it.

    The problem is less that UAs exist; it’s that people want two diametrically apposed outcomes. I get that folks think that some events should be “above” in game levers, because of circumstances.. But that’s a really difficult thing to do. Without it becoming and endless stream of hand-of-Frontier.

    I don’t know what the solution is, really. Reduce MA requirements, perhaps? Make it so the lever has a strong counter-point? I do know that outright removal of UAs isn’t the solution. Frontier could well stand to shift the dynamic, and rebalance the impact/ reversal to be a little less lop-sided.

    But I don’t think that “this is a charity, ergo the entire game must function to support it implicitly” is a reasonable expectation. Neither is outright cessation of game levers. Frontier probably needs to radically embrace a bit more moderation in such levers though.

    I think that is perhaps a more constructive solution.

  7. #67
    Originally Posted by Chrystoph View Post (Source)
    Since you are conducting a charity in the United States, and that charity is based in an online function, you could contact the FBI and request an investigation for cyber terrorism.

    The only qualifier would be that you would need to reasonably prove that the griefers cost the charity more than $5,000.00 in lost revenues, that being the lower limit required by the FBI to open an investigation.
    This is a very dangerous road to go down. There are harsh penalties if this is not done in the correct fashion. That will mean actual world consequences. I think it’s incredibly foolish to even suggest such a thing without some genuine legal advice prior.

    There are anti-swatting laws in many jurisdictions in the US now. False claims are taken seriously. Real people are hurt by such actions. This has the potential to be a very stupid thing to do. Even for good intentions.

    Please think about what you are saying. No offence.

  8. #68
    Originally Posted by kofeyh View Post (Source)
    Even for good intentions.
    good intentions? invoking cyber terrorism because some dudes ua bomb pixel stations in a game?

    really, dunno what's happening to this world ...

  9. #69
    Originally Posted by znôrt View Post (Source)
    good intentions? invoking cyber terrorism because some dudes ua bomb pixel stations in a game?

    really, dunno what's happening to this world ...
    I was threatened with a swat like my 3rd week into streaming. I told the guy to suck it. Wish I would have taken down the name though. I really wasnt sure if it was something Id continue to do. And I didnt know I was going to fall in love with Elite. At the time I just didnt care.

    But now Id jump all over reporting that. Lesson learned I guess.

  10. #70
    Originally Posted by znôrt View Post (Source)
    good intentions? invoking cyber terrorism because some dudes ua bomb pixel stations in a game?

    really, dunno what's happening to this world ...
    I think it’s reaosnable to consider people mean well, but these events have become a very emotive topic. There are some very passionate comments going on. Frontier genuinely tries to support these things, but they are under NO obligation to do so. And people have no implicit rights inside the game universe (there are ToS for access; but there's no implicit set of rights).

    I am attempting to remain polite and maintain some decorum. As I said. A potentially very stupid thing to do, as unlike the game universe, there are real people and real people can get into a huge amount of trouble for such things. Making such claims are really, really not trivial and there is massive consequence.

    IANAL. I doubt many here are. But you’d be forgiven for thinking the entire sodding forum is, at times.

  11. #71
    Originally Posted by h347h View Post (Source)
    UA bombing is an intended mechanic. It's had a few balance passes. Just appeal to people to help bring meta alloys.
    I'd say the key issue is more that there's no counter to UA-bombing, rather than worrying about whether or not it happens.

    It might be nice if UAs only existed in Open mode (simply vanishing from your cargo as soon as you play in a different mode) so that others might, at least, have a chance to intercept people carrying them.

    Also, perhaps there might be some way for a station to broadcast when it's receiving UAs so that interested players could take action?

    I'm sure nobody would have a problem with either of those measures since they'd both help encourage even more emergent content.

  12. #72
    One week before the station goes down, Galnet publishes a list of stations being affected by Thargoid sensor interference. Do nothing during that week, and the station goes down. Bring in bulk quantities of Meta-Alloy during that time, and chances are good you will counteract it. Much easier than trying to reverse a station under an actual lockdown.

  13. #73
    Originally Posted by Stealthie View Post (Source)
    I'd say the key issue is more that there's no counter to UA-bombing, rather than worrying about whether or not it happens.

    It might be nice if UAs only existed in Open mode (simply vanishing from your cargo as soon as you play in a different mode) so that others might, at least, have a chance to intercept people carrying them.

    Also, perhaps there might be some way for a station to broadcast when it's receiving UAs so that interested players could take action?

    I'm sure nobody would have a problem with either of those measures since they'd both help encourage even more emergent content.
    You're making fingertip love to my brain! Pls dont stop. Tell me more.

  14. #74
    Originally Posted by Delilah View Post (Source)
    What solutions around this issue come to your minds?
    Tbh if everyone complaining about UA-bombing in this forum, instead spent their time dumping some Meta-Alloys into the Stations/Megaships in question, there would be no issue to begin with.

  15. #75
    Originally Posted by Stealthie View Post (Source)
    It might be nice if UAs only existed in Open mode (simply vanishing from your cargo as soon as you play in a different mode) so that others might, at least, have a chance to intercept people carrying them. (...) I'm sure nobody would have a problem with either of those measures since they'd both help encourage even more emergent content.
    i usually don't care about what others do, but i would have a problem with that since it would be an ad-hoc measure to negate one single effect of the broad issue of modes disrupting gameplay. because exactly the same principle would apply to any bgs effect, cg, missions, powerplay, you name it. here on the forum, staunch defenders of mode equality have despised any suggestion to address this. if frontier were to do that it would be really embarrassing, better to just get rid of the ua thing altogether.

    again, they won't do that because, as stated by themselves and reiterated in this thread, ua bombing is valid gameplay. there is actually no issue here except op's misconceptions.

Page 5 of 15 FirstFirst ... 3456710 ... LastLast