A Serious Question, Does Griefs/Gankers truly do harm to Elite Dangerous

[Amanojaku]

There will always be gankers and griefers. Are they being d*? Sometimes. But you can't stop people from being d**

And there will always be people (who might be a little soft around the edges) that will rage quit the game when they get ganked.

So yes, I think that it does affect the game... but only in Open. Let's make that distinction for the millionth time. I also think the amount of people who ragequit Open due to getting ganked is minuscule. Elite never advertised itself as a coop game. It's competitive in open. You want coop? Play Private.

I fail to realize how this is such an issue in Elite, when it has all the modes you need. It's not like it forces everyone to play in Open. You just have to decide. If you don't want to be ganked then Open is not for you. Simple.

 

[setazar]

In "open PVE" or the like I would expect to see new forms of harassment. Like passively using collectors while another mines for you (yarr), pad camping brigades in cg's and eng bases, creative new ways to use force shell to get the cops to kill for you, and a hundred other things I'm not sinister enough to dream up.

Then these threads continue (albeit smaller in scope) calling for fixes on each of these new issues, and we end up that much further from new content.

Introducing new game modes is not the way.

 

[RevCaoticFox]

So this is a serious question does Griefs/Gankers truly do harm to Elite Dangerous game reputation and keeping many commanders from enjoying the game to its fullest.

I have been playing for about 3 years and have over 2000 hours in and truly love this game over all others. When flying around I rarely see other commanders, I know you can find commanders at hot spots, CC goals, engineer’s systems but you will also find Griefs/Gankers

I have two teenage sons that have no interest in playing Elite because of what they have read on line in redit and other gamming sites.

That Elite is a giant sand box full of Griefs/Gankers and you must grind for months just to get a good enough to be safe. When I told them that its just not true, they asked when I was on DW2 why did I play only in PG Fleetcomm.



(Case 1)

Distant Worlds Two had 13,000 commanders sign up and 10,000 plus actively head off into the black only to be hunted and harassed by about 50 Griefers known as Distant Gankers forcing many into private groups or solo. FleetComm was over loaded by the sudden increases of applicants for the FleetComm PG, it took them a couple of weeks to process all the requests. Many articles were written about the Griefing/Ganking of DW2 which clouded what DW2 was all about, 10,000 plus getting together and enjoying a gaming experience for a few months, unheard of in the gaming world.

(case 2)

My first day playing Elite in my starter system and getting blown up in my Sidewinder and a cmdr seeing my destruction messages me and offers to join his private group, he recommends me to play only in PG Mobius or solo and get out of the starter system.

(case 3)

I was doing the Palin mission and landed at the scout ship in solo I did a board flip for material and jumped into open, and when I did there were 5 other ships on the ground. Two commanders were trying to scan the Scout Ship way point. This was just hilarious to watch commanders struggling to scan the point below the ground. Watching and giving technical advice on wow to scan the scout, all having a good time communicating over voice or text when a ship started shooting at the parked ships on the ground. We all scrambled I went back into solo and the fun we were all having was gone.

(Case 4)

The update drops with new Guardian fighters and a new puzzle to solve at the new Guardian beacon. I flew a ways outside the bubble in my AspX explorer ship and when I arrive I find 6 other cmdr’s in open checking out the beacon all in small ships, Diamondbacks, AspX, Hauler ? with no weapons or only small laser type weapons. We start taking turns scanning and taking the Key, talking and having a great time. Then In drops a cutter and FDL and starts attacking “Griefing” we all scatter and the enjoyment is gone.
Now in solo I flew 10k away and went back into open and it looked dead then laser lights started flashing some poor Asp getting it now, I was done for the night and signed off .



When on expeditions’ its common to invite other commanders into your friends list, I now have over 150 friends on my friends list and when playing I normally see my online friends are mainly playing in PG or Solo.

When flying around the bubble in open I rarely find other commanders. When dropping in on a Guardian site or Dav’s Hope ect., and find commanders on the ground they often will instantly switch off, I assume for fear of griefers or just being paranoid.


Effects Griefs/Gankers have on the Game

1. Damaging reviews of the game from online sources
2. Keeping many commanders from playing in open
3. Being paranoid and not wanting to socialize when in open
4. A small minority have a huge effect on how the majority play the game
5. Keeping commanders from have fun like in case 3 & 4
6. Keeping the game from being more popular than it should be.
7. Frontier having to get involved when Griefers lied and got into Fleetcomm to cause grief.
8. Causing most Expeditions to be held mostly in Private Groups

So many times, I hear if you don’t want to get Griefed you should just play in Solo or PG. How can this be healthy for the longevity of any online game might as well just sell me an offline version. While on Expeditions and in private groups I find commanders friendly and eager to share the gaming experience and helping any commander that need assistance.

This game should encourage commanders to come together and enjoy this beautiful game not to hide in solo and be afraid to interact.

can we poll this?

 

[Delilah]

It is worthwhile reminding ourselves what griefing means, as it is not the same a piracy, smuggling, combat, pvp, or ganking.

Griefers are not in-game roles. They are rather real-life, immature and sometimes sociopathic individuals seeking to ruin another persons gaming experience. For examples, think of the UA bombing of Dove Enigma or the seal clubbing in starter systems before the C&P system (imperfect as it is).

If the game is a simple FPS or a battle royale then griefing doesn't seem to exist as everyone is engaged in the same or similar combat activities. Grievers thrive in social games, however, where non-combat activities are possible and the outrage of their victims can be seen or heard. Elite is one of these games, and its social nature (e.g., community goals) provides plenty of scope for griefers to engage in their anti-social behaviour.

I'm open to the idea but not convinced that changing Open would solve the problem per se. It may be better to have a server or zone or mini-game where griefers congregate. I'm partial to the idea of greatly ramping up the C&P penalties for attacking other players, while revising PowerPlay to serve as the dedicated mini-game for combat. Griefers might go this route and Open would be more attractive. But this is hardly the only good idea out there on the subject.

All this assumes, however, that we have a proper new player experience that protects noobs from Seal Clubbing in the starter bubble and constant griefing when they get out of it. Starter systems and community events are where griefers do the most harm to Elite.

 

[RevCaoticFox]

It is worthwhile reminding ourselves what griefing means, as it is not the same a piracy, smuggling, combat, pvp, or ganking.

Griefers are not in-game roles. They are rather real-life, immature and sometimes sociopathic individuals seeking to ruin another persons gaming experience. For examples, think of the UA bombing of Dove Enigma or the seal clubbing in starter systems before the C&P system (imperfect as it is).

If the game is a simple FPS or a battle royale then griefing doesn't seem to exist as everyone is engaged in the same or similar combat activities. Grievers thrive in social games, however, where non-combat activities are possible and the outrage of their victims can be seen or heard. Elite is one of these games, and its social nature (e.g., community goals) provides plenty of scope for griefers to engage in their anti-social behaviour.

I'm open to the idea but not convinced that changing Open would solve the problem per se. It may be better to have a server or zone or mini-game where griefers congregate. I'm partial to the idea of greatly ramping up the C&P penalties for attacking other players, while revising PowerPlay to serve as the dedicated mini-game for combat. Griefers might go this route and Open would be more attractive. But this is hardly the only good idea out there on the subject.

All this assumes, however, that we have a proper new player experience that protects noobs from Seal Clubbing in the starter bubble and constant griefing when they get out of it. Starter systems and community events are where griefers do the most harm to Elite.

-ok.. u caught my attention...
-C&P rework SHOULD go in the direction of EVE Online & security zones (which already exist)… just tweak it (Archon's, ATR, actively hunt in secured spaces)
-"griefing" as perceived, rather than ACTUAL GRIEFING, would quickly be replaced by ROLE PLAYING (see earlier thread), aka piracy, bounty hunting, bounty survival, true interstellar factor usage, and maybe even higher percentage of rebuy cost (as well as TOTAL BOUNTY COLLECTIONS).
-imagine trying to plot a course from Deciat to Sol, using high security systems only... I bet even PVP'ers would engage in BGS to make it near impossible, and... it would bring some PRIVATEERS to OPEN, because it's "possible"

 

[CMDR GRAEME COWELL]

Not a universal solution but if (as an example stated earlier) 50 griefers are able to ruin the experience of a fleet of 10,000 then perhaps the answer is a 100 (small overall %) of those ships to be combat rated and fly protection.
Surely if the problem in a multiplayer game is player behavior then the answer is a multiplayer solution?

 

[Chaparral]

Same old arguments same old thread. Completely unnecessary. I suggest a block function similar to what we have in game which is used to create a PVE Open mode.

 

[Bashy81]

'"Griefing"' is a massively overestimated problem on this hand-wringing forum.

I don't really do PP so I guess it should be easy for me to "throw it under the bus" but I guess I can understand why the people who do enjoy the current paradigm might not like the idea of it being repurposed.

My biggest concern would be that all the talk about OOPP is just "forum PvP" - a bunch of people trying to come up with stuff intended to upset others for the lulz - and that if FDev did repurpose PP all that'd happen would be that the people who currently enjoy it would stop doing it and then PvPers would stop doing it too, when they got bored of it, and it'd end-up as a wrecked, unwanted, abandoned, facet of the game.

PP is a wrecked unwanted abandoned facet of the game. Thats one of many reasons why its such a good candidate for mechanics changes including either Open Only or a layering of activities between modes that suits the nature of each mode (as Rubbernuke has preciously suggested v well). Giving a legitimised 'opt-out' when the going gets contested, is the reason why for example this cycle, Winters has been hijacked by a console-farmed vote-bomb, and actual Winters players are helpless to intervene.
The forum PvP is almost exclusively on the part of the naysayers, the people arguing for it are those who've been at the heart of Powers for years. If you want to see who's who, have a read back over powerplay articles in SagI over the last couple of years & you'll see all the relavent contributors, and have an informative and engaging read, to boot

There was a fair amount of hooting and hollering from the "this is the beginning of Open only ALL THE THINGS" crew in those threads too.

There was a sparse spattering of eejiots on either side of the debate, which doesnt refute or reveal anything about the rest of the discussion.

Okay. A strawman argument is an attempt to deflect from a point. I defined what I meant by a PvP flag, because I had not clearly explained it before (I thought Robert Maynard would understand the context because he had participated in the thread I had in mind & later linked to).

The suitability or otherwise of any PvE rule has no bearing on that PvP flag proposal, or PPOOFF for that matter, they are independent of each other.

I hope that is now clear.

Youre gonna find plenty more 'strawmen' in your way if youre using terms like 'PPOOFF' to denigrate proposals.
What does the FF part stand for btw?
Your prejudices seem pretty clear, anyway.

 

[Riverside]

Youre gonna find plenty more 'strawmen' in your way if youre using terms like 'PPOOFF' to denigrate proposals.
What does the FF part stand for btw?

Power Play Open Only Focused Feedback.

 

[Bashy81]

Power Play Open Only Focused Feedback.

Ah ok, at least it makes better gramatical sense and is more specific than Powerplay Open Only (PPOO) or even Open Only Powerplay Suggestion (OOPS)
I guess those particular terms dont make it easy to not sound biased when abbreviating.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I suppose that now is a good time to point out that the same PvE zealots who sneer that PvP has no deep gameplay mechanics tied to it were the same who soiled themselves hardest when it was proposed that Powerplay be tweaked so that that PvP could assume a more poignant role in the greater game.

I suppose it's also a good time to point out you talking bollox. Open only was argued against. PvP specific features were proposed by me for instance (military/civilian influence points). And the PvP zealots reaction was: no! Open only.

 

[Hossi]

Not a universal solution but if (as an example stated earlier) 50 griefers are able to ruin the experience of a fleet of 10,000 then perhaps the answer is a 100 (small overall %) of those ships to be combat rated and fly protection.
Surely if the problem in a multiplayer game is player behavior then the answer is a multiplayer solution?

That idea is not new, and the answer is: It doesn't work that way.
You see, a ganker needs 10 seconds max (probably less) to blow up a lightweight exploration build. It takes just 15 seconds for the explorer to high wake after all. But it takes at least 5 minutes for a fully armed pvp ship top blow up the ganker.
And that means, even if you had 3 escorts for every explorer, the ganker could still just ignore them, blow up the explorer, and leave with 80% shield left.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

That idea is not new, and the answer is: It doesn't work that way.
You see, a ganker needs 10 seconds max (probably less) to blow up a lightweight exploration build. It takes just 15 seconds for the explorer to high wake after all. But it takes at least 5 minutes for a fully armed pvp ship top blow up the ganker.
And that means, even if you had 3 escorts for every explorer, the ganker could still just ignore them, blow up the explorer, and leave with 80% shield left.

Plus instancing means you can't provide escort. Plus it was an exploration event, not a combat event.

And DW2 was a great success. DGs was just an annoyance

 

[Ethaidan]

That idea is not new, and the answer is: It doesn't work that way.
You see, a ganker needs 10 seconds max (probably less) to blow up a lightweight exploration build. It takes just 15 seconds for the explorer to high wake after all. But it takes at least 5 minutes for a fully armed pvp ship top blow up the ganker.
And that means, even if you had 3 escorts for every explorer, the ganker could still just ignore them, blow up the explorer, and leave with 80% shield left.

A proper wingman does not fire upon the attacking enemy, rather places his ship between the attacker and target, thus soaking up damage to allow the target to escape.

 

[Bigmaec]

Plus instancing means you can't provide escort. Plus it was an exploration event, not a combat event.

We did this in Colonia/Carcosa some times for returning explorer friends.

Wing up, combat vessels jump to the system where the explorer is while the explorer himself is in an outer, empty system.

Pre-emptively interdict all interdictor-fitted vessels (or communicate with them) if there, and leave one winged in the supercruise instance.
If clear, let the explorer jump in. Due to instancing, friendlist, and squadron rules, the explorer 'should' land in the 'cleared' supercruise instance with at least one
combat vessel with an interdictor, and can then safely reach it's destination.

It works* - at least in less crowded areas - but it is helluva lot of work for a single ship to reach it's target, and it's far from guaranteed.

It wouldn't work in areas like Shin for example, because there are more combat ships in the instance sometimes then people in our squadron

*caveats:

- if people wait in normal space and turn up in the same instance, anything can happen...

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

We did this in Colonia/Carcosa some times for returning explorer friends.

Wing up, combat vessels jump to the system where the explorer is while the explorer himself is in an outer, empty system.

Pre-emptively interdict all interdictor-fitted vessels (or communicate with them) if there, and leave one winged in the supercruise instance.
If clear, let the explorer jump in. Due to instancing, friendlist, and squadron rules, the explorer 'should' land in the 'cleared' supercruise instance with at least one
combat vessel with an interdictor, and can then safely reach it's destination.

It works - at least in less crowded areas - but it is helluva lot of work for a single ship to reach it's target, and it's far from guaranteed.

It wouldn't work in areas like Shin for example, because there are more combat ships in the instance sometimes then people in our squadron

Escorting single ships, no problem.

10.000+ ships, for an extended period of time however ...

 

[n13L5]

Its very simple, but different for different players:

• if you play only in SOLO, its completely irrelevant to you.
• if you care about playing in open, its detrimental, because less people will bother to play in open.
• unless you feel there's already enough people in open anyway...

But then, you might not actually ask this question.

 

[Bigmaec]

Escorting single ships, no problem.

10.000+ ships, for an extended period of time however ...

Imagine 10000 well built, shielded and survivable explorers in open. A dream

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Imagine 10000 well built, shielded and survivable explorers in open. A dream

A dream for who?

I have to accept griefers play in Open and attack anything that moves. Why can't others accept some players don't enjoy combat encounters?

What does it matter to them how explorers outfit?

 

[Bigmaec]

A dream for who?

I have to accept griefers play in Open and attack anything that moves. Why can't others accept some players don't enjoy combat encounters?

What does it matter to them how explorers outfit?

No idea, I never ganked explorers.

I like to survive though, and that's how I build my ships.

When I was still in Mobius I also built minmaxed long-range ships, complete without armor and 3D shields with roughly 20 mj.
Nowadays in open, I won't do that any more. Because as you said, there ARE griefers in open.

And I see this from a roleplay perspective too.

If Elite was the real life, without the rebuy/guaranteed survival in the life pod, you can bet I would use ANYTHING available to improve my
survival chances, even if that would cost me 10 LY range and inconvenience me by making me jump 300 times to Colonia instead of 108.