A possible solution to griefing

[thunktone]

I was talking to another player recently, who plays mainly in private groups, about open and why they don't play in it. Personally if I'm not meeting other players I normally do play in open. I think it should be possible for players to form blockades, especially for combat zones and power play. The other player feels that players should be able to opt out of pvp combat without giving up on meeting more sociable players. He wanted some sort of mechanic to say 'no' to an interdiction by another player.

I'm writing here as a player who has never destroyed another player's ship outside of a pre-arranged duel or other 'sport'. I don't mind being attacked by other players for a reason but I think the players who hang around places like Jameson Memorial and keep attacking my cargo, passenger and exploration ships while ignoring my combat ships are both boring and selfish.

I think there is a way to have both blockades and a less severe PVP opt out. There are two elements to it:

Emergency hyperspace Don't want to submit to an interdiction and can't escape it? Then you can't stay here, press a button and be flung into a nearby system. Probably use the usual hyperspace key bind, or press the supercruise one twice as you would for an emergency stop. Harassing a player who has no bounties by following them and doing this repeatedly should probably get an automatic suspension, or a temporary 'block player' to separate them.

An 'official' blockade This would be a bit like the military interdictions in war zones, but perhaps more concentrated around stations. NPCs would enforce these blockades in all play modes and players could join the blockade in open and be rewarded for finding ships with bounties, enemy combat bonds, or particular cargoes and preventing them from getting in, one way or another. There would be a bit of 'magic' to these rewards if a player with the banned cargo does an emergency jump. You would get the reward even though you didn't scan them, but maybe you'd need the relevant scanner equipped.

These blockades would be placed around relevant stations for a community goal. In war a faction might place a blockade around its own stations to look for ships with bounties, or combat bonds from the enemy. Or the winning side might blockade enemy ports to stop arms trading, or even food and water. In powerplay fortified systems would have friendly blockades and undermined systems would have hostile blockades. Stations in lockdown would have blockades too, and maybe other states.

The existence of a blockade around a port would be displayed in the FSS, the system map, and the HUD. Maybe the galaxy map too.

 

[Nocturn]

What problem are you actually trying to solve?

I play exclusively in solo and private PvE groups. I think what you are proposing would ruin the experience for most who play in open. Wouldn't it be easier for you to join a PvE group and sometimes play in that group if you want to meet other people?

I really doubt that for me the proposed mechanics would convince me to play in open, if that was your goal.

 

[thunktone]

The problem I'm trying to solve is that open contains about as many positive player interactions as negative. Switching to a private group avoids the negative interactions but it avoids a lot of the positive ones too. I'm a member of several private groups but there's little chance of encountering other players there outside of pre-arranged activities.

There are three aims:

1. Yes, to bring people back to open. I never imagined it would make open the choice for everyone, but if it solved some peoples concerns that would be great.
2. To make open play better for the people who already play there. It really is dull being interdicted for no reason in a non-combat ship in a system that's supposed to be high security. I can afford the rebuy but I don't see why someone should be able to demand I stop playing the game for a few minutes while they play their silly game.
3. To improve community goals and power play by making legitimate blockades work, to some extent, across play modes.

 

[Nocturn]

Switching to a private group avoids the negative interactions but it avoids a lot of the positive ones too.

(I'll respond more comprehensively when I have more time.)

If one of your goals is to convince players to play more in the open game mode, why are you advertising all the bad things of open?

I mean, you could've said: "Open is great because of x, y AND z"

I'm sure there are bad and good things about open. You're playing open, so it must be better for you for a reason. You only casually mention there is a good reason when someone says they are playing private or solo. Don't you think it would be better to emphasize the good parts of the game in open to convince other players?

What I'm trying to say is that maybe you have a messaging issue in trying to convince others.

 

[Hellfire85]

I don't have a source on that, but as far as I'm informed, Open is the mode most people play in.
Just because the forum community complains a lot about griefers in Open, doesn't mean it's the majority.
There is no problem to solve here.
It's just that the few who are getting griefed are taking it so badly that they switch to PG or solo as soon as a combat ship points its nose.
Stop trying to fix what's not broken.

 

[Ethaidan]

Emergency hyperspace Don't want to submit to an interdiction and can't escape it? Then you can't stay here, press a button and be flung into a nearby system. Probably use the usual hyperspace key bind, or press the supercruise one twice as you would for an emergency stop. Harassing a player who has no bounties by following them and doing this repeatedly should probably get an automatic suspension, or a temporary 'block player' to separate them.

You know this pretty much already exists.
1. Submit to interdiction, thereby avoiding FSD cooldown.
2. Boost away (preferably FA off)
3. Hiwake to nearby system, thereby avoiding any mass lock
So, basically, you want to reduce this already simple skill set down to pressing a single button. Well done.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I don't have a source on that, but as far as I'm informed, Open is the mode most people play in.

Sandro said it in a stream.

.... and another Dev is on record as stating that Frontier are "well aware that the majority of players don't get involved in PvP".

 

[Killnine]

You know this pretty much already exists.
1. Submit to interdiction, thereby avoiding FSD cooldown.
2. Boost away (preferably FA off)
3. Hiwake to nearby system, thereby avoiding any mass lock
So, basically, you want to reduce this already simple skill set down to pressing a single button. Well done.

Whether it's a three step procedure or a single button doesn't matter. What matters is, that non-combat players unwilling to risk the rebuy screen and/or salt are forced to avoid CGs and other points of interest and therefore doomed to an Open mode that looks and feels more like Solo.

 

[Killnine]

.... and another Dev is on record as stating that Frontier are "well aware that the majority of players don't get involved in PvP".

Shouldn't that be a clear signal that: 1) there is too little meaningful PvP and 2) a lot of players don't care for PvP and don't want others to be able to shove it down their throats. I think the only way forwards is addressing both 1 and 2, and the best way is to enable and encourage vigilantes.

 

[Ethaidan]

Whether it's a three step procedure or a single button doesn't matter. What matters is, that non-combat players unwilling to risk the rebuy screen and/or salt are forced to avoid CGs and other points of interest and therefore doomed to an Open mode that looks and feels more like Solo.

Nope. I go to CGs whenever I please (this week and last week in an AspX), I regularly visit Jameson, engineers, wherever I want... always in Open.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Shouldn't that be a clear signal that: 1) there is too little meaningful PvP and 2) a lot of players don't care for PvP and don't want others to be able to shove it down their throats. I think the only way forwards is addressing both 1 and 2, and the best way is to enable and encourage vigilantes.

Therein lies the problem. DBOBE stated, long ago now, that his view was that PvP would be "rare and meaningful" - which is not what transpired in a game where any player can choose to attack any other player at any time (when instanced together). It is perhaps unsurprising, for a game where all three predecessors in the series were single player, that many backers / players aren't looking for PvP in this game. One example of this is that the Mobius Private Group was created before the game even launched, to provide a way for players to enjoy the game without PvP (apart from in CZs, at the beginning, where it was allowed, however even that was subsequently banned. Players who attack other players in one of these PGs are kicked out.).

The usual definition of "meaningful PvP" is that it should affect the galaxy and be unaffected by players who don't engage in PvP - a difficult challenge in a game where every player is given the ability to both affect and experience the politics, economy, etc. of the shared galaxy - regardless of platform or game mode.

Player "policing" of the galaxy would be a fruitless endeavour, in my opinion, as those doing the policing have specific targets (who can mode switch at will and therefore appear anywhere at any time) whereas those adversely affecting the game experience of other players probably aren't looking for specific targets. Then there's the fact that moving around the galaxy itself takes time - and each system is huge in and of itself.

 

[thunktone]

If one of your goals is to convince players to play more in the open game mode, why are you advertising all the bad things of open? ...

Thanks for your input. The goals I listed are for the feature suggested, not for the thread. Most of the positive player interactions I've had in open have been as simple as stopping for a chat as our paths cross. Like the Sidewinder pilot I met the first time I visited Earth, or the time I met two other pilots who, like me, had flown tourists out a hundred thousand light seconds from a star, to the same surface tourist beacon, at the same time.

The first time I participated in a community goal it was about preparing for a party in a prison colony by delivering various cargoes, most of them illegal. Two players tried, quite justly and in the spirit of the game, to interdict my Type-9 as I approached the station. The first failed while my hold was full of beer or something illegal. That was quite tense and exciting, more so than an NPC interdiction somehow, probably because my combat rating was still below my abilities and I'd be confident of beating the NPC in my Condor. The second succeeded and used a manifest scanner on my ship. This time I was only carrying coffee and they let me go. A fluke, but I felt so sneaky.

I even had a tense moment in one of the Thargoid target systems last week when the notorious CMDR TruffleShuffle looked like he was moving to interdict my hurriedly AX modded Diamondback. I dropped out of supercruise and went into silent running while I plotted an escape route.

These kinds of interaction make Open worth it for me, but I wouldn't want to be dismissive of those who avoid it. They have legitimate reasons and most of them have been playing longer than I have. Maybe the griefers will grind me down too in the end, who knows?

You know this pretty much already exists.
1. Submit to interdiction, thereby avoiding FSD cooldown.
2. Boost away (preferably FA off)
3. Hiwake to nearby system, thereby avoiding any mass lock
So, basically, you want to reduce this already simple skill set down to pressing a single button. Well done.

Yes, I want to simplify and speed it up, spend more time playing Elite: Dangerous and not their tedious deathmatch game. Also boosting away doesn't work too well in most of the ships I've had targetted. It's not much fun to lose a ship because the galaxy map took too long to load either.

Whether it's a three step procedure or a single button doesn't matter. What matters is, that non-combat players unwilling to risk the rebuy screen and/or salt are forced to avoid CGs and other points of interest and therefore doomed to an Open mode that looks and feels more like Solo.

A fair opinion, I think some community goals are riskier than they ought to be in Open. Others though, like the prison smuggling one I mentioned above, should perhaps be more dangerous. I made a fortune that week, entirely in open, but partly because instancing meant that I slipped by the player blockades on most trips.

Player "policing" of the galaxy would be a fruitless endeavour, in my opinion, as those doing the policing have specific targets (who can mode switch at will and therefore appear anywhere at any time) whereas those adversely affecting the game experience of other players probably aren't looking for specific targets. Then there's the fact that moving around the galaxy itself takes time - and each system is huge in and of itself.

Sounds right, and personally I'd have no more interest in vigilantism than in being pointlessly attacked. Either way it's taking time out of the game I like for a game I'd rather not play.

 

[Misty_Dark]

The suggested things would do very little to convince players to play in open....You only need to look at the griefers, also known as the players who just hang around in open near hotspots and kills "weak" victims, just for fun. If you could get a flight log and in what mode they played while doing things, you would find that the griefers almost exclusively do all non combat stuff in Solo/Private mode, and when they are are in Open, then are in the gank machine preying on weaker ships...



And one the main issues here is that there is no real risk for people to engage in unprovoked PvP actions against other players, what do I mean by this? Take any high security system, and go there and start killing anything clean. does not have to be players. Do this is a "cheap" but competent combat ship, like a Vulture. Check how this blatant disregard for the law has almost NO downsides to you... The effects are not that hard, even if the C&P made it a bit more annoying.
* Once Hostile, you are no longer allowed to dock at stations owned by the controlling faction. Yeah you have your base of operations in another system, problem solved

* The authority ships will randomly detect you, but they are no match for you to escape from. more or less just a minor nuisance, nothing to worry about, also, you have done alot of interdictions, so wining against authority ships should be a breeze.

* Getting your bad ship hot is a bit more trouble than before, when you simply just had to dock at where you where wanted, and get into a sidewinder and suicide, and everything was forgiven... now you are sent to detetion center and all of that fun stuff. But most of the time these are only a few jumps away. And you cannot pay it of at interstellar factions if you have a notoriety. But if you are persistent in killing clean ships, you get a discount on the rebuy when authority kills you. Yup, it pays to be bad.... So instead of paying of your bounty AND rebuy, you get a lower rebuy that almost matches the bounty !?! so you pay a little more than the rebuy ...


So behaving like a murdering hobo has very few drawbacks. And I do recommend all of us to actually try this. to learn this, any cheap combat ship will do, fit a fuel scoop, for easy getting back, be ready for 10+ rebuys and go kill clean ships in a system you do not care about. and learn how C&P works and how it is not working.




Add to this is what players have to loose on these unwanted PVP situations.
*Rebuy cost
*Failed Missions = lower reputation
*Lost Cargo
*Exploration data, imagine explorer returned in Open with months of exploration data....
*NPC Crew, once your ship is destroyed, they are gone.


I have nearly 18 million in rebuy on my cargo outfitted Type 9, there are very few missions that can cover that loss, so I would have to make many missions to make up for one rebuy, and this rebuy cost is the result of me trying to make my Type 9 as resistant as possible against pirates, but against a player who have decided that I am their content to kill at their will, I basically have no way to escape if they manage to interdict me. The only legal option I have is to use the 15 seconds exit timer, and hope I survive that long.



So this is the current reality the "victim" of an aggressor have ALOT more to loose than the aggressor. and we also know that many of those aggressors, are not afraid of doing a combat log to avoid their own destruction... if they end up loosing the fight.



Sadly FDev have failed in a spectacular way to segment the space to have the security rating to have any real influence on anything.
High Security system should be that, fast response, and powerful response. So doing trading here should be very safe in unshielded trade ships. Very high paying wet work missions! Low paying transport missions

Medium Security, here you need a little shield, as response is slower and not as powerful. Medium pay wet work missions and transport missions


Low Security, here you are on your own, as the response have to get here from the closest Medium/High Security system. low paying wet work missions and high paying transport missions

Anarchy, no response at all. There are no wet work missions just assassinate missions, very high paying transport missions. taking a shieldless trader here is a really bad idea.



So if this was the case, players can choose their risk level. Stay in high security systems, and the risk of getting killed is very slim, but doing missions into Anarchy systems/space, you can be sure there will be both players and NPC's that is coming after you....



There is also no career path in Elite for being a outlaw/Pirate etc.
If you are trying to be a Pirate, you are handicapped, as you have to send ingame text messages, that the other player might or might not even notice. All the target sees is a hollow icon is interdicting me... oh, , oh , I am going to get killed... It has been suggested many times for a ingame system to send predefined messages that you choose from a menu. I have no idea how Player Pirates on consoles manages this, as typing there seems like a really big effort (I know XBox have chat pad, but I have not seen if Playstation have anything similiar), atleast on PC you can have ready copy/paste messages to use, making the typing alot faster.





I have avoided Power Play, as that is another player choice, although the I feel many players are only into Power Play for the weapons/modules.





So basically being the victim of unwanted PvP most of the time have huge drawbacks, and at the same time, the negatives for the aggressor is just a minor nuisance.
If these things are not addressed, nothing will really change.

 

[Marra Morgan]

I'm writing here as a player who has never destroyed another player's ship outside of a pre-arranged duel or other 'sport'.

That actually makes you the least qualified to offer a solution for greifing.

 

[Cyclinguy]

That actually makes you the least qualified to offer a solution for greifing.

Silly question, but why is that exactly?

 

[Misty_Dark]

Silly question, but why is that exactly?

One thing I can think of, is that if you are suggesting a solution to a problem, but do not know most of mechanics involved, tend to give solutions that would not work, or even make matters worse.


I can think of a player who suggested harsh punishment for griefers, and he was not aware that players could use ingame mechanics to make him the bad guy, and thus be forced to accept the harsh punishment.... so if that solution would have been implemented, griefers could use the system that was intended to punish them to cause problem for the players it was supposed to "protect".

 

[Cyclinguy]

One thing I can think of, is that if you are suggesting a solution to a problem, but do not know most of mechanics involved, tend to give solutions that would not work, or even make matters worse.

I can think of a player who suggested harsh punishment for griefers, and he was not aware that players could use ingame mechanics to make him the bad guy, and thus be forced to accept the harsh punishment.... so if that solution would have been implemented, griefers could use the system that was intended to punish them to cause problem for the players it was supposed to "protect".

That's an interesting argument, and I wonder if that is what the original poster meant. It's not quite what they said as they were claiming someone who had never indulged in non consensual PvP was unlikely to make useful suggestions on how to stop griefing. The two come closer to agreement if the term griefer meant any person indulging in non consensual PvP, but surely this isn't the case?

If your interpretation is correct, it would tend to imply that only griefers themselves would be able to suggest adequate anti-griefing measures that couldn't be turned round and used against the 'griefee'... [woah]

 

[StiTch]

A possible solution to griefing

 

[Misty_Dark]

That's an interesting argument, and I wonder if that is what the original poster meant. It's not quite what they said as they were claiming someone who had never indulged in non consensual PvP was unlikely to make useful suggestions on how to stop griefing. The two come closer to agreement if the term griefer meant any person indulging in non consensual PvP, but surely this isn't the case?

If your interpretation is correct, it would tend to imply that only griefers themselves would be able to suggest adequate anti-griefing measures that couldn't be turned round and used against the 'griefee'... [woah]

That is sort of the problem. Griefers have tested the system and use it to their advantage, C&P is not any meaningful way stopping griefers, so if you have not engaged in that sort of gameplay, you are not familiar how it works, and thus are more likely to make the wrong assumptions when trying to come up with a solution.


Now you do not have to go out and hunt players, you can get a pretty big understanding by playing the griefer way against clean NPC targets, and see how that plays out... I would suggest to do this is a small cheap combat ship.