Flagging griefers

[Scoob]

The only penalty you get from firing in the no-fire zone is a miniscule fine, unless a) Your target is clean and has "Report Crimes On", or b)you accidentally hit the station or security NPCs.

If the targets are wanted you can freely shoot at them within the no-fire zone, and if they return fire (and you have crimes on) the station will become very unhappy.

NOTE: None of the above applies in Anarchy systems, except for the "hitting the station" part

Yes, you're right, but it'd be nice if this role was legitimised in-game. My main point was the griefer-rammers who generally manage to remain "clean" despite their actions. It takes a players eyes to readily identify their behaviour and take action.

Aye, and it's also a good way to start giving the "rank" system meaning with factions... such as Imperial/Federation/Alliance currently exist. If the rank system is tied into the new profession factions, it gives it a bit more definition.

Anyway- it ties into the topic, but I don't want to hijack this thread for discussing said ideas

Absolutely. Rank currently is just a grind wall I had to work through to get the ships I want. Sure, I got some system access permits along the way, but that was of no interest to me. Gameplay could be expanded hugely with some structure in regards to player careers and progression.

Yes, not wanting go to off-topic, though I feel a solution to this problem that offers genuine additional gameplay and player involvement if far more preferable to adding them to the naughty list

Scoob.

 

[PeLucheuh]

Of course it is I decide to ban someone from playing in my game so I block them, the chances of me getting instanced with them are then vastly reduced.

Thank you for proving my point : People can still play the game and instance with you.
Stick to reality : It's FRONTIER's game and it is not a ban.

 

[Chainguns]

I used to think that it was the bullies that drummed up these dramas each week for the salt. But then you look at the mechanics and it's Fdev that's enabling these griefiers - actively.

How else can you allow a system that pitches 4 plasma/rail Fer de Lances against 1 Type 6? How else can you allow a player a laser that causes his opponent's thruster and frameshift to malfunction (scramble spectrum) or reboots their FSD (yuri grom) or stops them accelerating to FSD speed (drag munitions, ion disrupters)? Note that all of these malicious mechanics have virtually ZERO use against NPCs but game destroying implications for cmdrs. Simply question - why implement them?

Why create a system that gives cmdrs a choice of a) game reward earning modules (cargo racks/srvs/scanners) OR b) PvP protection modules (HRP/MRP/SCB). All or nothing, no hybrids viable. And then sit idly by as players equipped for playing the game are torn to shreds by those equipped with deliberately designed harassment tools. How else can you create weapons that are either a) great at game rewards (high ammo, low damage) but useless at PvP OR b) great at PvP (high damage low ammo) but awful at playing the game? Why have NPCs hard to hit with fixed so 99% of people run gimbals ... and then give all the killer damage to FIXED weapons and immunity from gimbals via one chaff util?

All conscious decisions. And yet they stream in Open, celebrate it, tell us to all go to "community goals". Anyone thinking this will get changed with C&P is fooling themselves. There's a design pattern here and the intentions behind it clear.

 

[Sylveria]

I used to think that it was the bullies that drummed up these dramas each week for the salt. But then you look at the mechanics and it's Fdev that's enabling these griefiers - actively.

How else can you allow a system that pitches 4 plasma/rail Fer de Lances against 1 Type 6? How else can you allow a player a laser that causes his opponent's thruster and frameshift to malfunction (scramble spectrum) or reboots their FSD (yuri grom) or stops them accelerating to FSD speed (drag munitions, ion disrupters)? Note that all of these malicious mechanics have virtually ZERO use against NPCs but game destroying implications for cmdrs. Simply question - why implement them?

Why create a system that gives cmdrs a choice of a) game reward earning modules (cargo racks/srvs/scanners) OR b) PvP protection modules (HRP/MRP/SCB). All or nothing, no hybrids viable. And then sit idly by as players equipped for playing the game are torn to shreds by those equipped with deliberately designed harassment tools. How else can you create weapons that are either a) great at game rewards (high ammo, low damage) but useless at PvP OR b) great at PvP (high damage low ammo) but awful at playing the game? Why have NPCs hard to hit with fixed so 99% of people run gimbals ... and then give all the killer damage to FIXED weapons and immunity from gimbals via one chaff util?

All conscious decisions. And yet they stream in Open, celebrate it, tell us to all go to "community goals". Anyone thinking this will get changed with C&P is fooling themselves. There's a design pattern here and the intentions behind it clear.

Although I can see why many arrive at this conclusion, I must disagree. I don't think it was an active "design" decision at all, but rather an unexpected consequence of choices made. If it was intended as a design decision, they would have introduced the game without a mode system and chosen Open as the only available mode.

They simply did not foresee that it would have this result- and the only thing they've done "actively" since release is ignore the issue in hopes that it would work itself out.

Well, here we are many years later, and it's apparent this hasn't happened. So they do need to take an "active" role in addressing it, else it will continue along as it always has.

 

[Stigbob]

Thank you for proving my point : People can still play the game and instance with you.
Stick to reality : It's FRONTIER's game and it is not a ban.

When I'm playing my copy it's my game my rules my ban.

 

[Deleted member 110222]

When I'm playing my copy it's my game my rules my ban.

While I fully respect the block function, I also have to point out that this statement is objectively false.

As you mentioned earlier, the block doesn't "ban" the player from your instance, but merely reduce the likelihood of successful matchmaking.

Secondly, it is not "your" game. While you have a license to use the software, said code remains the property of FD.

However, if you do wish to "ban" players from "your" game, you have a perfectly valid instancing rule to use. In fact you have two. Solo & PG.

 

[Stigbob]

While I fully respect the block function, I also have to point out that this statement is objectively false.

As you mentioned earlier, the block doesn't "ban" the player from your instance, but merely reduce the likelihood of successful matchmaking.

Secondly, it is not "your" game. While you have a license to use the software, said code remains the property of FD.

However, if you do wish to "ban" players from "your" game, you have a perfectly valid instancing rule to use. In fact you have two. Solo & PG.

I'm not bothered by people using words differently.

 

[Deleted member 110222]

I'm not bothered by people using words differently.

Fair enough. Do bear in mind however, that unless you state otherwise, what one posts on a forum will be taken literally.

 

[Stigbob]

Fair enough. Do bear in mind however, that unless you state otherwise, what one posts on a forum will be taken literally.

Terminology rows tend to go nowhere fast, for example I use cheat and exploit as interchangeable terms or just type cheat/exploit. As long as people can get the gist I'm happy with that.

 

[Deleted member 115407]

I used to think that it was the bullies that drummed up these dramas each week for the salt. But then you look at the mechanics and it's Fdev that's enabling these griefiers - actively.

How else can you allow a system that pitches 4 plasma/rail Fer de Lances against 1 Type 6?

Because only combat-focused ships have the ability to wing...

How else can you allow a player a laser that causes his opponent's thruster and frameshift to malfunction (scramble spectrum)

Experimental upgrade that allows hull strikes to potentially trigger random malfunctions on the target

or reboots their FSD (yuri grom)

Point defense... faster FSD boot sequence? These may be troublesome weapons, but counters do exist.

or stops them accelerating to FSD speed (drag munitions, ion disrupters)?

Doesn't prevent boosting though, right? Just stops you from changing your throttle?

Note that all of these malicious mechanics have virtually ZERO use against NPCs

False. I use them against NPCs all the time.

Why create a system that gives cmdrs a choice of a) game reward earning modules (cargo racks/srvs/scanners) OR b) PvP protection modules (HRP/MRP/SCB).

Good at hauling, bad at fighting...

Spoiler

Good at fighting, bad at hauling...

Spoiler

All or nothing, no hybrids viable.

Pretty meh at both...

Spoiler

And there are plenty of ships in this game capable of defending themsleves and doing those other things (hauling, sciencing, whatever).

And then sit idly by as players equipped for playing the game are torn to shreds by those equipped with deliberately designed harassment tools.

Not equipping an adequate shield and countermeasures is hardly equipping yourself for playing a game in a cutthroat galaxy.

How else can you create weapons that are either a) great at game rewards (high ammo, low damage) but useless at PvP OR b) great at PvP (high damage low ammo) but awful at playing the game? Why have NPCs hard to hit with fixed so 99% of people run gimbals ... and then give all the killer damage to FIXED weapons and immunity from gimbals via one chaff util?

NPCs aren't hard to hit with fixed weapons. You just need to learn how to use fixed weapons. They have higher damage output because they have potentially less time on target than gimbals.
Chaff doesn't make you immune to gimbals. It reduces their effectiveness, and that based on range to target and target size.

 

[PeLucheuh]

When I'm playing my copy it's my game my rules my ban.

No it is not.
Stick to reality : It's FRONTIER's game and it is not a ban. You have no power regarding rules in Open or ban in general.

Words are important especially when people easily confuse expectations with reality.

 

[ALGOMATIC]

This is elite, not a game for rat kids that is GTA 5. Most of us are here for relaxing and condescending play.

That is the reason that mobius group and solo mode are the kings

Sure, wonder why I see at least 20 cmdrs every time I log in open, maybe I logged in Mobius by mistake

 

[ALGOMATIC]

The station rammers/cheats/griefers/cloggers are boring and offer nothing you want in your game, they've always been a pain and FDEV unfortunately don't ban them. So they will probably always be a pain.

I used block to specifically remove players like that from my game. It is a guaranteed fix, don't leave open yourself just get choosy about who is allowed in open with you.

More info here : https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...ners-advice-on-dealing-with-griefing-(part-2)

It doesnt guarantee anything, its just puts them on the bottom of queue for instancing with you. Besides, you might be forcing your friends in game to not instance with you unknowingly.

Blocking is also for panzys. Bad enough the game has instancing problems with people who have no one on block trying to instance with each other, why make it more convoluted?

Thats because FDEV has no idea how to make a MP game, combined with the 3 modes offering the same rewards joke.

 

[GG7]

No, it has nothing to do with "being prepared" or "git gud" or "situational awareness" - those things are only the bandaid needed to get anything resembling gameplay out of Open Mode.

FDevs implementation of a PvP enabled multiplayer Open Mode is simply broken if the intention was to create a believable galaxy and equally broken if they intended to create a arcade PvP shooter.

I just get fed up with the ever present BLUE TUNNEL B S when ever I fly in Open Mode. I play in Solo not because I am afraid of griefers, but because the actual gameplay experience (flow) is night and day smoother and more reliable in Solo than it is in Open.

 

[Han Zulu]

I just get fed up with the ever present BLUE TUNNEL B S when ever I fly in Open Mode. I play in Solo not because I am afraid of griefers, but because the actual gameplay experience (flow) is night and day smoother and more reliable in Solo than it is in Open.

And, by design, if I play in Open on my exploration account, I can't take Alt-F10 hi-res pictures. You just can't. It's disabled in Open. So the only way to get fullest resolution and the best pictures if you're an explorer is to play in Solo or PG. Several times in these discussions I decided to switch to Open, and then I get somewhere and want a picture, and try and it doesn't work and I wonder if something is broken until I remember... oh, yeah, I can't do it in Open.

So... it's just the way the game works.

 

[TrollhunterX]

You make a good argument and a week ago I would have agreed with you, now however I've come to a different conclusion after some investigation, into my personal theories.

This is being done in part for "teh lulz" by some players jumping on the bandwagon - but also to HIGHLIGHT the utter stupidity of a player being able / allowed to do all these things by the wholly ineffective BGS and AI.

A higher percentage than you might think of those "bullies", are doing it because they can, NOT BECAUSE THEY LIKE IT, but because the game ALLOWS IT, which is wholly different.

As you say - INSIDE a station and INSIDE the zone you would think the station security should react to. Previously this was going on in starter systems until FDev finally took steps to reduce it, but elsewhere it's still rampant.

This is also happening because FDev "allow it" by ommission of doing anything effective to stop it when complaints are made, either with warnings or sanctions against the accounts in question.

Gueromarinero (or anyone else), please do not make the mistake of beleiving I'm on the side of griefers, I'm not and have made that VERY VERY clear in the years I've been on the forum (and I dedicated part of my life to stopping the "bullies" of society, at personal risk) but when you start to look at the wider picture and actually ask a few pertinent questions in the right places, and the answers you get are not "me smash you huh!" but articulate, intelligent and clearly the result of more than a few minutes thought, the entire situation of this sort of behaviour becomes clearer.

My conclusion is that this antisocial behaviour is a campaign of sorts to force FDevs hand into action:

"lets see just how bad we can make the game in OPEN for players before FDev do something to fix the incredibly flawed BGS mechanics"

So far the answer seems to be "as bad as you can possibly think of, for THREE YEARS AND COUNTING"

With something like 90% of the playerbase in groups or solo.

Considering one of the next big content updates is a rebuilt Crime & Punishment mechanic - I'd say it's working.

For those of you who might argue that the C & P is happening because this was happening anyway, you're only half right, because in truth just DAYS after the game was launched we had the real ACTUAL griefers in disposable sideys doing the same thing - FDev ignored it for months, and some players saw that FDev were going to continue to ignore it and decided the only way to effect change was to make the situation so untenable for new players, FDev had NO CHOICE but to address it.

Gueromarinero - what you and others have been victim of is more of the same - because instead of FIXING the same situation last time at the roots so it couldn't happen elsewhere or again, they just stuck a plaster over it.

Many of you are probably not even aware that there have been concerted planned efforts to do this same exercise for several other parts of the game that were "broken" - and in turn it forced FDev to change it.

It seems to be the only language they respond to.

You just said everything I wanted to say. It's so easy to hang the label 'troll', or 'griefer', on somebody, without considering that they might have altruistic incentives for their actions. Just like 'white hat hackers', testing a system to destruction, or close to it, can be the only way anything ever gets addressed.

At the same time, there are some things that just can't be changed easily, even if the motivation is really there, and it must be pretty frustrating for the devs when people just seem unable to appreciate that, and throw crap out of their cages regardless. There really is no way to be sure, though.

I was going to suggest some kind of station control over misbehaving ships, cutting their power, shields, engine thrust or whatever. That doesn't deal with the real issue, though, so maybe just personal steps to avoid these players, or get comfortable with Mr Rebuy until more realistic gameplay is achieved, might be best.

 

[Stigbob]

No it is not.
Stick to reality : It's FRONTIER's game and it is not a ban. You have no power regarding rules in Open or ban in general.

Words are important especially when people easily confuse expectations with reality.

Nope it's definitely my game, as I'm the ultimate arbiter of who gets kicked and who doesn't. Like Mobius is to Mobius except I apply my personal rules to the whole of open mode.

It doesnt guarantee anything, its just puts them on the bottom of queue for instancing with you.

It's better than nothing, and effective for the vast majority of the time. My glass is half full.

​

Besides, you might be forcing your friends in game to not instance with you unknowingly.

Only if there are griefers about in which case I'll message anyone in my friends list a list of CMDR's they'll also want to block solving the problem.

 

[Dharrch Streynjer]

The answer might be startlingly simple as answers often are.

Allow player factions to permit lock systems they control.

This will have some amazing secondary effects for BGS as I expect that it will lead to a great many fascinating faction wars.
Plus there has to be some way for a player faction to wrest control from a faction that has a permit locked system.
I'm sure this could work for the most part as groups like Mobius are extremely large and should be able to hold thier system easilly.

Obviously any transgressors would have their permits revoked at the faction level rather than rely on player bans.

Now for the wave of naysayers LoL

 

[Phazon Xenomorph]

Block is a player activated ban, designed specifically for players to remove unwanted CMDR's from their game.

Lets take SDC's operation healies4feelies as a for instance, during it I saw players inside a station exploiting healing beams as an invulnerability cheat to avoid destruction by the stations defenses shooting CMDR's who were not cheating with impunity. I decided I didn't want to play a game with the cheats so I blocked them, the ones doing the shooting and the ones providing healing beam support. I also blocked the guy who was trying to ram launching ships at the same time.

Here's the thread SDC started about it here in the forum : https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...ion-Healies4Feelies?highlight=healies4feelies

How is that not a player activated ban.

So sdc did a service proving how broken healing beams were by doing that, and instead of mode switching or playing in mobius you chose to block them and cause more server and instancing problems. You probably thought healing beams were fine too

 

[sb413197]

This "griefer" stuff doesn't bother me at all - in fact I find it exciting. But I don't like players that spew garbage over the comms - that bugs me.