PvP An incident in open

[StiTch]

My point is that just because something is designed in some way does not mean it cannot be improved.

Cheers

Well ofc. My point was quite different: are you able to construct a ruleset that can faultlessly assign blame?

I have total confidence assuring you that FD have considered this predicament before, and the current state is the resulting design choice.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

Well ofc. My point was quite different: are you able to construct a ruleset that can faultlessly assign blame?

I have total confidence assuring you that FD have considered this predicament before, and the current state is the resulting design choice.

This is probably a silly question, but.... can players not be trusted to use a modicum of common sense combined with Wheaton's Law to act in a manner which is clearly how the devs intend the game to be played, even if they CANT actually implement certain features 100% reliably.?

i would say what OP is talkign about is a prime example of a player ignoring Wheaton's law and as such, anyone suggestion OP is a cheat for menu logging is spouting crazy talk imo.

it is obvious surely that FD do not want a player to be able to ram another player do destruction right under the nose of the station security inside the station, without any form of retaliation and with the "victim" unable to defend themselves..... but equally as you correctly state, making a rule set which works properly without false positives, and without borking the game for the 99.9% of the playerbase is hard, if not impossible.

Perhaps before logging in, FD should add a check box saying "on signing into this game I agree to abide by Wheaton's law"

 

[John Tenzer]

This is probably a silly question, but.... can players not be trusted to use a modicum of common sense combined with Wheaton's Law to act in a manner which is clearly how the devs intend the game to be played, even if they CANT actually implement certain features 100% reliably.?

i would say what OP is talkign about is a prime example of a player ignoring Wheaton's law and as such, anyone suggestion OP is a cheat for menu logging is spouting crazy talk imo.

it is obvious surely that FD do not want a player to be able to ram another player do destruction right under the nose of the station security inside the station, without any form of retaliation and with the "victim" unable to defend themselves..... but equally as you correctly state, making a rule set which works properly without false positives, and without borking the game for the 99.9% of the playerbase is hard, if not impossible.

Perhaps before logging in, FD should add a check box saying "on signing into this game I agree to abide by Wheaton's law"

Well, you could reintroduce general "Automated landing" once an authorized ship has entered the station via the slot and "Automated Lift-off" until it has left the station via the slot, hence solving the problem once and for all. Like it was in the older parts of Elite.

Of course, that reduces the necessity for a Docking Computer, and probably some Commanders would cry out of cutting down their freedom of movement. But there is always something, isn't it?

 

[StiTch]

This is probably a silly question, but.... can players not be trusted to use a modicum of common sense combined with Wheaton's Law to act in a manner which is clearly how the devs intend the game to be played, even if they CANT actually implement certain features 100% reliably.?

...

Perhaps before logging in, FD should add a check box saying "on signing into this game I agree to abide by Wheaton's law"

Well the fact is "that how the devs intend the game to be played" is supposed to be just about anything. Short of breaking actual game rules, the very hookline of this game is "blaze your own trail". Players have as much right to break Wheaton's Law as they do to become a peaceful trader.

The correct handling is for consequence to be prevalent where possible, and for no game-breaking exploits to exist. If you can dock, it's about as much as you can ask - just as long as the player cannot permanently sit on your pad and actually prevent you docking.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

Well, you could reintroduce general "Automated landing" once an authorized ship has entered the station via the slot and "Automated Lift-off" until it has left the station via the slot, hence solving the problem once and for all. Like it was in the older parts of Elite.

Of course, that reduces the necessity for a Docking Computer, and probably some Commanders would cry out of cutting down their freedom of movement. But there is always something, isn't it?

like i said.... without ruining the game for 99% of the playerbase

(i love landing manually, landing a ship FA off is one of the most challenging parts of the game for me....... tho arguably if a player is involved in X number of collisions with other ships in the station in a time period then forced automated landing for a month could be a lore addition to the game). (assigned by the station due to previous numerous potential wreckless flying incidents.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

just as long as the player cannot permanently sit on your pad and actually prevent you docking.

which they can..... another "trick" used in the past, (back in the day the plan way to be destructable when on the little installations, i guess FD were right not to allow that given what we have seen.... but a timeout before losing docking privalage would not be a bad idea...)

but i digress.

(but equally if a player insists on the right to act a berk then they should not whine when a player menu logs on them because THAT is a feature working as intended as well then?)

 

[John Tenzer]

Though, arguably if a player is involved in X number of collisions with other ships in the station in a time period then forced automated landing [and starting] for a month could be a lore addition to the game. (assigned by the station due to previous numerous potential wreckless flying incidents.

Yes, that would be a sound compromise. Dare to propose it in the [Suggestions] subforum...?

 

[babelfisch]

Someone being perused or attacked, by any means, is clearly combat.

No, he wasn't. The other player didn't fire a shot. He was not in combat. I am pretty sure there was no 15 second log out timer either. There wasn't even the intention of combat, there was just one guy exploiting game mechanics to make the life of others miserable. And if you advocate this behavior I think you are the next person that should get banned. It's quite clearly against the TOS and not within the rules of the game.

PS
Also, following your definition I am not allowed to quit the game when I am in SC or docked, because there could still be someone waiting for me. Nonsense.

 

[Gibbon]

I think it would be enough to ban them to Solo. They would probably stop playing anyway but they couldn't complain about it.

Let's clarify what the attacker has done. He/She has been nothing more than a pain in the thruster, using a game mechanic which most of us deplore. FD should fix it, simple as. To say the rammer should be banned is ridiculous, loads of ppl would be banned to solo in that case. All this highlights is the need for the devs to do something about it, nothing more. Next time somebody sees this guy, i'm sure he'll be put out of his misery in game, and that's the end of it. Banning? I think not

 

[Gibbon]

It's quite clearly against the TOS and not within the rules of the game.

Is it now? Care to clarify that or point me in the direction where this is written down? To what rules do you refer to? Last time I checked there weren't any

 

[babelfisch]

Let's clarify what the attacker has done. He/She has been nothing more than a pain in the thruster, using a game mechanic which most of us deplore. FD should fix it, simple as. To say the rammer should be banned is ridiculous, loads of ppl would be banned to solo in that case. All this highlights is the need for the devs to do something about it, nothing more. Next time somebody sees this guy, i'm sure he'll be put out of his misery in game, and that's the end of it. Banning? I think not

Is it now? Care to clarify that or point me in the direction where this is written down? To what rules do you refer to? Last time I checked there weren't any

It's in the TOS since it's player harassment. Note that I am not entirely serious, I just write the very same nonsense like the league against combat logging. Splitters!

 

[Stigbob]

OP this fella offers nothing you want in your game just block him and forget he exists, he might still be in your contacts list in the comms panel you can block him from there.

Here's a detailed how to : https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...ners-advice-on-dealing-with-griefing-(part-2)

 

[Stigbob]

Stigbob, are we going to have to report you for abuse of the block list again? [big grin]

You need to get Jason Barron on the case he's the most prolific provider of inadvertent excuses for me to spam the link or raise the profile of the block function [up].

 

[Morbad]

No, he wasn't. The other player didn't fire a shot. He was not in combat.

I don't find your definition of combat remotely reasonable, useful, or in accordance with the dictionary definition of the word.

The idea that combat in Elite: Dangerous must feature someone deploying hardpoints and opening fire is an absurdly narrow definition.

I am pretty sure there was no 15 second log out timer either.

If you've taken damage, from any source, to shields, hull, or modules, there is a 15 second logout timer. Collisions, overheating, and interdictions prompt the timer, as well they should. I believe even trespassing warnings prompt the timer.

There wasn't even the intention of combat, there was just one guy exploiting game mechanics to make the life of others miserable. And if you advocate this behavior I think you are the next person that should get banned. It's quite clearly against the TOS and not within the rules of the game.

I don't agree with these presumptions either.

Ramming someone, even inside a station, isn't an exploit or against the rules. I don't agree with the mechanisms in place that control station hostilities, but not agreeing with them is not the same as them not being deliberate. There is no more unfair advantage gained by attacking someone inside a station as both CMDRs remain subject to the exact same rules.

I don't like that stations can't recognize combat occurring in their interiors as long as someone hasn't exploded yet, or as long as weapons haven't been fired, but I don't like mode swapping or relogging to refresh mission boards either.

It's in the TOS since it's player harassment.

I don't assume someone is trying to harass me as a player when they attack me inside a station.

I assume they incorrectly assume that my CMDR a less flexible combatant than their's and that this will provide them with a tactical advantage. I am happy to demonstrate otherwise.

 

[sovapid]

it is obvious surely that FD do not want a player to be able to ram another player do destruction right under the nose of the station security inside the station, without any form of retaliation and with the "victim" unable to defend themselves..... but equally as you correctly state, making a rule set which works properly without false positives, and without borking the game for the 99.9% of the playerbase is hard, if not impossible.

I disagree, since that is how the game is and has been for a while.

And I, for the most part, don't like it.

I don't want everything thing to be automated landing or more "rules".

The only thing I can think of is to have the station equipped with healing lasers. So if you've requested docking and come through the airlock, the station will attempt to heal your shields if they start to drop. Won't make the station 100% safe, but will make station ramming kills much harder. Well, for ships that are running shields.

 

[Gunnet]

You didn't specify whether it was a menu log or taskkill, although it doesn't ultimately matter in this case. Logging out via the menu is legitimate at any time. Taskkilling is only an exploit when in combat, and you weren't in combat by any reasonable definition.

You might also want to consider reporting the harassment via the ingame form or a support ticket. I doubt you're the first player this sore loser has harassed for successfully running their "blockade".

 

[M. Volgrand]

A question about open,
I play a mix of open / private / solo and last night I was on alone and decided to play open. I enjoy seeing other Hollow square boxes on the screen and some of the local chat. I was flying to my home system to turn in some missions as well starting to buy some new Power Play mats for ZH. On my way home I was interdicted and told there was a blockade and I could either high wake out or get blown up. I thought cool; let’s see how my piloting skills are. I salute; turn to run and low wake out. So I saw the box once again on my radar and once again I am fighting interdiction. This time I submit, and with all pips to engines, I low wake again. I am determined I’m getting home. The determined blockade protector also kept coming. I tried to keep him guessing, I would drop super cruise, and just fly till I saw him in the instance then I would once again low wake out and this little cat and mouse kept going all the way back to my orbital. I dare say it was fun and more exciting than the usual fly here, drop this off and fly back get credits.
So I get to my station, request docking, and make sure I am under 100 speed limit. I do see the FDL on screen and was curious what he would do. As soon as I entered the toaster he rammed me, taking out the remaining bit of my shields, I applauded his tenacity but was curious why the station wasn’t going to do anything about it. Then when I was near my landing pad, he proceeds to push me off course of my pad, got underneath me and started ramming some more. I could not land and was taking big damage.
This is where the immersion was broken, The station was idly watching this happen and because we were both under 100 they would not do anything. I could not do anything except let him keep ramming me. If he bested me out in space, I would happily let him destroy me. That is why you play open, but to me this guy took it to far and was abusing a lack of control in a station. So I exited the game.
My questions
(a) How would you handle this situation?
(b) What could I have done other then let him ram me to death in the station?
I like PvP encounters and will not cry foul over any of the encounter out in space but my evening was tainted and I decided after logging back in and turning in missions, I was done for the night. I was thankful I was in my engineered python and credit it for keeping me alive.
Call me whatever names you want, I am just looking for options here and to listen to some peoples thoughts on this? If the consensus is I am a bad person for logging out, so be it. I will take my pounding next time and be a better person for it.
Thanks for listening.

That guy was a . You played an amazing and good game there, and he pushed the game's algorithms beyond logic just to get you killed. Sadly we cannot put public bounties on this forum, otherwise I would be very keen to go after him.

 

[UmbraRex]

Thanks for reply.




Since they are punishing you for loitering of pads by death, surely they could also apply same rules for repeatedly ramming.

8<snip>8

The problem becomes how does the AI know who is doing the ramming?

 

[sovapid]

Sign me up, too! I'm 46 and 100% trustworthy

Me too! I'm 45 and 110% trustworthy!

 

[sovapid]

Figured there are enough in this thread that might like to see a video of station griefing going bad for the griefer, me.

Saw someone I sorta knew and was gonna block his landing pad for a minute. Until he docked through me and pinned me underneath him.....


[video=youtube_share;2S04sZWeLOI]https://youtu.be/2S04sZWeLOI[/video]