Avoiding Group Control...

[Orko]

Never going to happen. First, no developer is going to appoint themselves a judge in what's griefing and what isn't.

Second, there is kinda no point in enabling players to shoot at each other, then punishing those who do, eh? It would be like giving a bunch of kids water guns, then yelling at them for getting wet.

Third, those players who like to PvP, which involves shooting other players, paid money for the game just as anyone else. Unless they put in "firing weapons at other players will result in your account being flagged as antisocial and put into a segregated instance forever" - which they won't - they will have no right to segregate anyone on the basis of how friendly with their guns they are ingame.

What those who can't stand the idea of another player shooting at them CAN do, is segregate *themselves* from those players. They can't however, force those players into being segregated from everyone else.

Which is why this thread is silly. In Eve, there is no getting away. Here, you just switch to private/solo or add them to your ignore list, and then you don't have to worry about anyone.

I wasn't suggesting to flag it for one or a few actions you take. It should involve loads of prerequisit's. On how many igoner list you are how often over a course of a week attack's occure without reason (no pirating action or special area something like attacking in no fire zones). And it wouldn't be a ban but set to another group so they wouldn't be matched with other non flagged player's. And also not an automated assignment of this account state. You should also be made aware of that this state is set to your account with repeal option after a grace period.

But the ignore list should suffice yea.
Would drain quite some resources to moderate this group and it is quite questionable if it is even necessary to do so. Would need testing.

But this would be an option to handle such massive groups that are only out for 'dominating' the other player base. They could still play but then go hassle others doing the same.

And as i stated this wouldn't solve them affecting the overall universe market and event outcomes.


And never say never. I remember that some game either proposed or implemented a similar system i just can't find it again. Well maybe i just dreamed it or i got it from a proposal on the forums here.

My point with the comment was about how does something like the OP brought up even affect the enjoyment of the game the average player.

I see 2 point's getting in the crossfire of farming ganking, not being able to meaningful affect the big event's and market crashes.

The main concern is the ganking part which hopefully will be solved with the ignore list. But if it fails this extra group system could supplement it.
In my expectations we want market crashes and falling system's, as i stated. Will Bring up interesting new event's, missions and trade opportunities.

The only problem are the big event's we could affect. Making them moot if there are giant organisation of players making the outcome certain.

 

[Juniper]

Never going to happen. First, no developer is going to appoint themselves a judge in what's griefing and what isn't.

Second, there is kinda no point in enabling players to shoot at each other, then punishing those who do, eh? It would be like giving a bunch of kids water guns, then yelling at them for getting wet.

Third, those players who like to PvP, which involves shooting other players, paid money for the game just as anyone else. Unless they put in "firing weapons at other players will result in your account being flagged as antisocial and put into a segregated instance forever" - which they won't - they will have no right to segregate anyone on the basis of how friendly with their guns they are ingame..

Game allows bad behaviour. Bounty hunting, piracy, outright psychotic, you name it. The devs have acknowledged this. Everyone (well, most people) is cool with that - it's Elite Dangerous after all... clue is in the name and the legacy.

It's not really who shoots at who in the mechanics of the game - griefing is something else. It's people going out of their way to ruin your game, for no other reason than to ruin your game.

And FD have every right to do as they please with that, because... and I'm getting very bored of saying this... it's their game. Not yours or mine. The 'Hell' group is one thing that is being discussed... and reading between the lines in the DDF suggests that it's probably the favoured option right now.

 

[Seonid]

I can't figure out if I like you or not...

:dons mullet: Opinions vary.

WooT! Super Uber Nasty Magic Mushroom arising, with "goon panic" in the title ZOMG dat sperg!

http://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=26656

Grats to whoever opened it, I know you're here

 

[JeffRyan]

:dons mullet: Opinions vary.

Ha, yeah... I also mentioned that above somewhere.

 

[Meritz]

I wasn't suggesting to flag it for one or a few actions you take. It should involve loads of prerequisit's. On how many igoner list you are how often over a course of a week attack's occure without reason (no pirating action or special area something like attacking in no fire zones).

Ok, think that through - here we are in a thread talking about a huge player organization that is known for metagaming and messing with game rules.

How would you like to end up on a few thousand ignore lists in a week because Goons posted your name in their "Boot this player to antisocial!" thread? And then FD acting on it?

Griefing can be only player conduct that is clearly not intended by the game setting. In a FPS game where people can shoot each other and crouch, teabagging, however immature and annoying, is NOT griefing. Repeatedly insulting someone or being a racist or a na*i is - the distinction is readily apparent.

FD will only police the community to ensure the latter happens as little as possible. When it comes to people losing ships to other people, that's the primary design of the game and will never be sanctioned.

And FD have every right to do as they please with that, because... and I'm getting very bored of saying this... it's their game. Not yours or mine. The 'Hell' group is one thing that is being discussed... and reading between the lines in the DDF suggests that it's probably the favoured option right now.

Wrong. It is their product. It is OUR game. They sell that product for money. We're their customers. If we bought their product, they have no right to deny us the full use of it unless we violate specific terms stated in the EULA (and even then some EU countries say those are basically worthless, although that might have changed with the new trans-atlantic agreement, I don't know).

But consumer protection laws in western countries prohibit vendors from acting as self-appointed sheriffs. Your ISP will not cut off your internet connection because you're using it to look at pictures of naked ladies/men (is that innocent enough for you, profanity filter?). Doesn't matter what the CEO thinks about it. Just so, FD will not ban players into their segregated instances because they don't like what they do within the rules of the sandbox they created.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Just so, FD will not ban players into their segregated instances because they don't like what they do within the rules of the sandbox they created.

You seem to be rather certain of that - we'll see.

 

[Joe Spivey]

It is incomprehensible to some people that a game set in space, with armed spaceships and a PvP element does not automatically mean it is a game centred on PvP.

So they come to Elite without bothering to read up on what the game actually is. They look around for the familiar guild set up and find it doesn't exist... or at least it doesn't exist in a way necessary for organising PvP on the scale they expect for a space shoot-em-up.

The concept that PvP is secondary, even tertiary to Elite's focus just does not compute, so they either assume it must be wrong and that the devs will come around to the true way of thinking if only they complain loud enough. Or the decide to try and change the focus of the game into something they want and are familiar with.

Hence these repetitive threads with circular arguments. It is the squeaky wheel tactic. It is the water torture tactic It is the whiny kid tactic. Fortunately, it is a tactic FD are aware of and are rightly ignoring.

 

[NoirWolf]

It is incomprehensible to some people that a game set in space, with armed spaceships and a PvP element does not automatically mean it is a game centred on PvP.

So they come to Elite without bothering to read up on what the game actually is. They look around for the familiar guild set up and find it doesn't exist... or at least it doesn't exist in a way necessary for organising PvP on the scale they expect for a space shoot-em-up.

The concept that PvP is secondary, even tertiary to Elite's focus just does not compute, so they either assume it must be wrong and that the devs will come around to the true way of thinking if only they complain loud enough. Or the decide to try and change the focus of the game into something they want and are familiar with.

Hence these repetitive threads with circular arguments. It is the squeaky wheel tactic. It is the water torture tactic It is the whiny kid tactic. Fortunately, it is a tactic FD are aware of and are rightly ignoring.

They also probably ignore most of everything else as well so lets not get ahead of ourselves in righteous factor. What they choose to hear follows their ideas on the game and positively affects their bottom line so yeah.

Also PvP is equal even now in the game just made so you know if you engage in it recklessly you will pay quite allot but to say it is tertiary is disingenuous.

 

[Seonid]

It is the squeaky wheel tactic.

Squeaky wheel gets the kick! Right Boo?

 

[Meritz]

You seem to be rather certain of that - we'll see.

Well yeah, I do hope they won't be breaking any laws - it would be kinda bad for the game. And the company. Ah, fanbase wannabe dictatorships are always the best.

 

[Juniper]

Well yeah, I do hope they won't be breaking any laws - it would be kinda bad for the game. And the company. Ah, fanbase wannabe dictatorships are always the best.

What laws? :S

It's their game. You buy it - you play it - by their rules. Don't like it, don't play. Laws? Pfft.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Ah, fanbase wannabe dictatorships are always the best.

Has that not already been done?

 

[Meritz]

It is incomprehensible to some people that a game set in space, with armed spaceships and a PvP element does not automatically mean it is a game centred on PvP.

So they come to Elite without bothering to read up on what the game actually is. They look around for the familiar guild set up and find it doesn't exist... or at least it doesn't exist in a way necessary for organising PvP on the scale they expect for a space shoot-em-up.

The concept that PvP is secondary, even tertiary to Elite's focus just does not compute, so they either assume it must be wrong and that the devs will come around to the true way of thinking if only they complain loud enough. Or the decide to try and change the focus of the game into something they want and are familiar with.

Hence these repetitive threads with circular arguments. It is the squeaky wheel tactic. It is the water torture tactic It is the whiny kid tactic. Fortunately, it is a tactic FD are aware of and are rightly ignoring.

Doesn't matter. If you create a game with certain rules, anything goes within those rules. I don't care what "the concept" is. Tell me the concept with the ingame rules. Don't want us to shoot each other? Make player ships impossible to fire at.

What's the problem? If that's the "concept of the game", why would it be a problem to simply make players unable to attack each other?

FD are actually taking a proper route with the real concept of the game, which is a sandbox, open world PvP/PvE game. They have ingame rules to add consequence to "bad" behavior. Which is just fine. Desirable even. They don't however, dictate how exactly the game should be played.

What should they do? Come to players houses and beat them up if they dare to disrespect The Concept?

 

[Juniper]

Wrong. It is their product. It is OUR game. They sell that product for money. We're their customers. If we bought their product, they have no right to deny us the full use of it unless we violate specific terms stated in the EULA (and even then some EU countries say those are basically worthless, although that might have changed with the new trans-atlantic agreement, I don't know).

I think you're labouring under the misapprehension that when you "buy" a software product it then "belongs" to you. In 99% of cases this is completely untrue... what you are buying is a license to use said product on as many machines as the license specifies. Licenses can be revoked at the vendor's will, and every online game out there has a clause in the T&Cs which states that the experience may change and is not guaranteed.

But consumer protection laws in western countries prohibit vendors from acting as self-appointed sheriffs. Your ISP will not cut off your internet connection because you're using it to look at pictures of naked ladies/men (is that innocent enough for you, profanity filter?). Doesn't matter what the CEO thinks about it. Just so, FD will not ban players into their segregated instances because they don't like what they do within the rules of the sandbox they created.

Correct - if they play by the rules of the sandbox they created, that will not happen. Shooting players is fine. Attempting to crash into a station to destroy it is also fine. Going out of your way to ruin another person's game just for the hell of it (by various means, e.g. spam chat, racial or sexual abuse, persistent & targeted destruction, etc) is not fine - and there will be in-game consequences at the very least.

In truth, if you shoot someone, you'll likely get a bounty on your head - which makes you a target for other players & the in-game authorities. So it's kind of discouraged.

 

[Meritz]

What laws? :S

It's their game. You buy it - you play it - by their rules.

If they don't stick it in the EULA, it doesn't exist. I'd like to see an EULA dictating gameplay styles. I'm sure lots of magazines would too, it would be quite hilarious. Imagine EA sticking "Filthy camping snipers will be BANNED from Origin!" in their BF4 EULA...

Laws? Pfft.

Famous last words.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Don't want us to shoot each other? Make player ships impossible to fire at.

No, thanks very much

What's the problem? If that's the "concept of the game", why would it be a problem to simply make players unable to attack each other?

It would ruin the game.

FD are actually taking a proper route with the real concept of the game, which is a sandbox, open world PvP/PvE game. They have ingame rules to add consequence to "bad" behavior. Which is just fine. Desirable even.

No argument here.

They don't however, dictate how exactly the game should be played.

They are not choosing to at this time, but they could.

What should they do? Come to players houses and beat them up if they dare to disrespect The Concept?

It could be as simple as never matching players with hugely different PC/NPC kill ratios.

 

[Meritz]

Correct - if they play by the rules of the sandbox they created, that will not happen. Shooting players is fine. Attempting to crash into a station to destroy it is also fine. Going out of your way to ruin another person's game just for the hell of it (by various means, e.g. spam chat, racial or sexual abuse, persistent & targeted destruction, etc) is not fine - and there will be in-game consequences at the very least.

In truth, if you shoot someone, you'll likely get a bounty on your head - which makes you a target for other players & the in-game authorities. So it's kind of discouraged.

Exactly! That's all I'm saying - some players here seem to think that FD will create and enforce arbitrary game rules - in practice that's impossible to do in an MMO game. Instead, if they don't want something to happen regarding gameplay, they will change the code to make it impossible or difficult to happen. For better or worse.

 

[Space_Killer69]

Well yeah, I do hope they won't be breaking any laws - it would be kinda bad for the game. And the company. Ah, fanbase wannabe dictatorships are always the best.

Interesting that you talk about laws, but repeatedly want FD to ignore this?

Kickstarter:

We have the concept of “groups”. They can be private groups just of your friends or open groups (that form part of the game) based on the play styles people prefer, and the rules in each can be different. Players will begin in the group “All” but can change groups at will, though it will be possible to be banned from groups due to antisocial behaviour, and you will only meet others in that group.

 

[Joe Spivey]

Doesn't matter. If you create a game with certain rules, anything goes within those rules. I don't care what "the concept" is. Tell me the concept with the ingame rules. Don't want us to shoot each other? Make player ships impossible to fire at.

What's the problem? If that's the "concept of the game", why would it be a problem to simply make players unable to attack each other?

FD are actually taking a proper route with the real concept of the game, which is a sandbox, open world PvP/PvE game. They have ingame rules to add consequence to "bad" behavior. Which is just fine. Desirable even. They don't however, dictate how exactly the game should be played.

What should they do? Come to players houses and beat them up if they dare to disrespect The Concept?

Like the way you changed "The concept that PvP is secondary, even tertiary to Elite's focus..." into "the concept of the game" (which you even put quotation marks around) and then went off on your own tangent without actually addressing anything I was talking about.

The point I was making about "the concept that PvP is secondary, even tertiary to Elite's focus" is that, as designed, PvP is certainly allowable but is and was never envisioned to be the main part, the focus, of the game. Unfortunately, the common strand that runs through all of these threads about guilds and group swopping and PvP in general is that PvP either IS or SHOULD BE the main focus of the game. And it just ain't so.

 

[Meritz]

They are not choosing to at this time, but they could.

Only via coding it in. Or sticking it in the EULA, but the aforementioned hilarity would ensue.

It could be as simple as never matching players with hugely different PC/NPC kill ratios.

They could do that. Of course, the more specific your instancing rules become, the worse you fragment the community. If you're not careful, you end up with an occult system that automatically grinds your playerbase into little bits and keeps most people separate. I think that would ruin the game too, or at least turn into a singleplayer game with a required internet connection, a.k.a Ubisoft style.